Same-Sex Adoption Bill Introduced in Congress

[bobbyw24]

WASHINGTON -- As several states have moved to make it harder for same-sex families to adopt children or become foster parents, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would make such discrimination illegal across the country.

http://www.funbumperstickers.com/images/Human_Rights_Equality_flag2.gif

The Every Child Deserves a Family Act would "ban discrimination in adoption or foster care placement based on the sexual orientation, marital status or gender identity of the potential parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child," according to a statement from Stark's office. It has 33 Democratic co-sponsors in the House, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) will introduce a companion bill in the Senate in the coming weeks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/lgbt-adoption-bill-introduced_n_857172.html

[AlexMerced]

Hmmm... I'd have to see the exact wording of the bill, cause I don't think the federal or state governments should be able to control peoples behavior outside of the NAP. So if this rule is only preventing the states from controlling it's citizens thus protecting their liberty I'm not going to demonize the bill though I'm sure the 10th ammendment makes this unconstitutional like federal bann or protection of abortion would be illegal.

Although if who could adopt was broadened it could help reduce the amount of abortions since there would be a greater demand for children.

People like Rick Santorum make me sad, he wants to do away with abortion (fair enough), but in turn doesn't want to let anyone adopt the children (single parents and gays)... oi

[jmdrake]

Another wedge issue and just in time for the election season.

[Sola_Fide]

Adoption laws are constructed to make it easier to justify funding for state youth homes. The government doesn't want more adoptions, they want children to be wards of the state to fund their prison complexes.

[Brett85]

Hmmm... I'd have to see the exact wording of the bill, cause I don't think the federal or state governments should be able to control peoples behavior outside of the NAP. So if this rule is only preventing the states from controlling it's citizens thus protecting their liberty I'm not going to demonize the bill though I'm sure the 10th ammendment makes this unconstitutional like federal bann or protection of abortion would be illegal.

Although if who could adopt was broadened it could help reduce the amount of abortions since there would be a greater demand for children.

People like Rick Santorum make me sad, he wants to do away with abortion (fair enough), but in turn doesn't want to let anyone adopt the children (single parents and gays)... oi

You're right that the bill is unconsitutional, just like a bill to force the states to accept civil unions would be unconstitutional. The issue of gay adoption should be handled by the states rather than the federal government.

[Chester Copperpot]

For anybody who wants to see how dumb Pete Stark is...

This is the video where he argues that the more debt America has.. the richer America is...

And he throws Jan Helfeld out of his office,..


A classic


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0

[Krugerrand]

You're right that the bill is unconsitutional, just like a bill to force the states to accept civil unions would be unconstitutional. The issue of gay adoption should be handled by the states rather than the federal government.

I don't even like the state handling it. Private organizations is the way to go.

[Brett85]

I don't even like the state handling it. Private organizations is the way to go.

So is the actual libertarian position on this issue that all adoption agencies should be privately owned and operated, and each individual adoption agency should set their own rules for who gets to adopt children?

[bobbyw24]

I don't even like the state handling it. Private organizations is the way to go.

Right--states have been "handling" it for decades by outlawing it based on hatred of gays

[AlexMerced]

I don't even like the state handling it. Private organizations is the way to go.

ideally, yes

I'm big for privatized foster care, if a particular private foster care bsuiness wants to allow gays to adopt, then they can, but if someone else has aproblem they can start a competing foster care business and try to compete for the kids.

[jmdrake]

Right--states have been "handling" it for decades by outlawing it based on hatred of gays

Should NAMBLA members be allowed to adopt? I'm not saying all gays a NAMBLA members. My point is should the state be able to intervene in any case? I remember a case where a child molester was released from prison and he later was arrested after trying to adopt. He specifically asked for a "Young black boy with a clean bottom". :eek:

[Ranger29860]

Should NAMBLA members be allowed to adopt? I'm not saying all gays a NAMBLA members. My point is should the state be able to intervene in any case? I remember a case where a child molester was released from prison and he later was arrested after trying to adopt. He specifically asked for a "Young black boy with a clean bottom". :eek:


I see no reason why the state should not be able to regulate foster care to a certain extent. Now if a foster care agencie is funded or subsidized by the state they should not be able to refuse adoption based solely on the points made earlier. Now criminal records of certain types or association with certain organizations such as NAMBLA should prevent adoption.

BTW i'm gonna have to call you on NAMBLA thing if a sex offender goes after a little girl he's straight but sick, if a man goes after a little boy he is gay and sick. Sexual preference has little to do with the actual disturbing nature of child molesters. I know you probably didn't mean to single out gays for being child molesters. But when its worded like that it makes it seem like being gay has a certain influence towards being a child molester.

[jmdrake]

I see no reason why the state should not be able to regulate foster care to a certain extent. Now if a foster care agencie is funded or subsidized by the state they should not be able to refuse adoption based solely on the points made earlier. Now criminal records of certain types or association with certain organizations such as NAMBLA should prevent adoption.

BTW i'm gonna have to call you on NAMBLA thing if a sex offender goes after a little girl he's straight but sick, if a man goes after a little boy he is gay and sick. Sexual preference has little to do with the actual disturbing nature of child molesters. I know you probably didn't mean to single out gays for being child molesters. But when its worded like that it makes it seem like being gay has a certain influence towards being a child molester.

Did I upset your politically correct sensibilities? Sorry about that. "Call me" on this once you find the heterosexual equivalent of NAMBLA. I don't know of a "North American Man Girl Lover Association". And before you try to go all statistical, I'm not making claims about prevalence one way or another. But there is a certain level of acceptance of NAMBLA in the gay community. I never have seen NAMGLA (if such an association exists) at any "straight pride" events.

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/nambla.jpg

That said any child molester is sick. I've not claimed otherwise. But (most) straight people with child molester tendencies do not self identify. If they did then they should be barred from adoption also IMO.

[jonhowe]

This is one area where I'm not convinced on privatization.

Could someone explain to me how privately owned facilities would A. make money, and B. ensure fair treatment of the children? Most private companies make their money from other adults, but in this equation, it seems it's adults and children...

On a small scale, sure there are private orphanages and such, but even historically they've only been able to handle so much.


Not attacking, just curious.

[Ranger29860]

Did I upset your politically correct sensibilities? Sorry about that. "Call me" on this once you find the heterosexual equivalent of NAMBLA. I don't know of a "North American Man Girl Lover Association". And before you try to go all statistical, I'm not making claims about prevalence one way or another. But there is a certain level of acceptance of NAMBLA in the gay community. I never have seen NAMGLA (if such an association exists) at any "straight pride" events.

That said any child molester is sick. I've not claimed otherwise. But (most) straight people with child molester tendencies do not self identify. If they did then they should be barred from adoption also IMO.

I really could give a damn about political correctness :) . I grew up in the south and most of what i was taught was that gays = pedophiles even though there are just as many stories about little girls. In either case these people need to be castrated so you got no argument from me when it comes to these people being sick. As for the certain level of acceptance i really cant speak on the lbgt communitie as a whole but any event i have witnessed where nambla has shown up they were immediately chastised and told to leave. But this thread is starting to get derailed i am more than willing to discuss this in hot topics or private pm's.

In the context of the thread i think certain activities that can be viewed as harmful to the child's well being should prevent them from adopting. (this should not ever apply to political views)

[AlexMerced]

This is one area where I'm not convinced on privatization.

Could someone explain to me how privately owned facilities would A. make money, and B. ensure fair treatment of the children? Most private companies make their money from other adults, but in this equation, it seems it's adults and children...

On a small scale, sure there are private orphanages and such, but even historically they've only been able to handle so much.


Not attacking, just curious.


Basically, a Foster Car company would make money on placing quality kids with families willing to pay, so they have a financial incentive to not psycologically screw up the kid and treat them well so people will be willing to adopt them (parents may demand a multiple year warranty on their behavior, that if the kid is traumatized that the foster care company will cover the costs of therapy)

This also incentivises the company to take orphans from abusive homes and really invest in their rehabilitation so they can place them with a new family.

Watch my video, I get into a lot of detail.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTCVtByV5eU

[Ranger29860]

Basically, a Foster Car company would make money on placing quality kids with families willing to pay, so they have a financial incentive to not psycologically screw up the kid and treat them well so people will be willing to adopt them (parents may demand a multiple year warranty on their behavior, that if the kid is traumatized that the foster care company will cover the costs of therapy)

This also incentivises the company to take orphans from abusive homes and really invest in their rehabilitation so they can place them with a new family.

Watch my video, I get into a lot of detail.


What happens when the child becomes unprofitable?

[AlexMerced]

What happens when the child becomes unprofitable?

well, I'm sure there will be a few lost cases, but it'd be a lot less then there is now although one way to deal with that is allow corporations to raise kids. Like Microsoft could take a bunch and educate them and hire caretakers, and they would have a big incentive in training them to be great programmers or leaders and these kids will probably be even more successful. I bet your wondering why kind of lvoing atmosphere such a place could provide, it wouldn't be any different than foster care now where your fellow orphans become your family, except in this case you get provided with an insane education and foot in the door career wise.

The bottom line, I'm sure a lot of people will find this somewhat hard to swallow, but again there are lot of other incentives and institutions in soceity that would change in a free world that the amount of orphans and unwanted chidlren should hopefully be a lot less where solutions like these can be fairly elegant.

[Ranger29860]

well, I'm sure there will be a few lost cases, but it'd be a lot less then there is now although one way to deal with that is allow corporations to raise kids. Like Microsoft could take a bunch and educate them and hire caretakers, and they would have a big incentive in training them to be great programmers or leaders and these kids will probably be even more successful. I bet your wondering why kind of lvoing atmosphere such a place could provide, it wouldn't be any different than foster care now where your fellow orphans become your family, except in this case you get provided with an insane education and foot in the door career wise.

The bottom line, I'm sure a lot of people will find this somewhat hard to swallow, but again there are lot of other incentives and institutions in soceity that would change in a free world that the amount of orphans and unwanted chidlren should hopefully be a lot less where solutions like these can be fairly elegant.

That seems for the most part fine with me. Its just anything with children imho has to be handled with care to not let them fall to the wayside.

[dannno]

So is the actual libertarian position on this issue that all adoption agencies should be privately owned and operated, and each individual adoption agency should set their own rules for who gets to adopt children?

lol...you say that like you swallowed a golf ball and are trying to push it back out...

[AlexMerced]

So is the actual libertarian position on this issue that all adoption agencies should be privately owned and operated, and each individual adoption agency should set their own rules for who gets to adopt children?

Not that I'm aware of, I've never read or seen anyone other than myself really pushing for privatized handling of adoption and foster care.

[jmdrake]

I really could give a damn about political correctness :) . I grew up in the south and most of what i was taught was that gays = pedophiles even though there are just as many stories about little girls. In either case these people need to be castrated so you got no argument from me when it comes to these people being sick. As for the certain level of acceptance i really cant speak on the lbgt communitie as a whole but any event i have witnessed where nambla has shown up they were immediately chastised and told to leave. But this thread is starting to get derailed i am more than willing to discuss this in hot topics or private pm's.

In the context of the thread i think certain activities that can be viewed as harmful to the child's well being should prevent them from adopting. (this should not ever apply to political views)

I'll just add one point of law and be done. The current state of first amendment law is that a parade organizer has the right to deny groups adverse to its message from participating in the parade. So it matters not that some gay people shouted at NAMBLA to leave the events in question. If NAMBLA was allowed to march, it was with the permission of whoever organized the event. That said, my original point (which you seem to agree with) is that there are some activities that people can legally engage in that nonetheless make them unfit parents. I'll leave it at that.

[swiftfoxmark2]

Looks like Rep. Pete Stark is playing politics with the liberties of the States and individuals. He is merely trying to goad Republicans into taking up social issues rather than fiscal ones. He knows perfectly well that Republicans will lose if they take up the cause of social issues, like in 2006 when they tried to pass the amendment to ban all non-heterosexual marriages instead of cutting the budget.

While I'm not keen on gay couples adopting children, I'm also not keen on any government entity managing any kind of foster care or adoption service. It is just more central planning that leads to the government telling us how to live our lives.

[Krugerrand]

Looks like Rep. Pete Stark is playing politics with the liberties of the States and individuals. He is merely trying to goad Republicans into taking up social issues rather than fiscal ones. He knows perfectly well that Republicans will lose if they take up the cause of social issues, like in 2006 when they tried to pass the amendment to ban all non-heterosexual marriages instead of cutting the budget.

While I'm not keen on gay couples adopting children, I'm also not keen on any government entity managing any kind of foster care or adoption service. It is just more central planning that leads to the government telling us how to live our lives.

I believe the Karl Rove "genius" was to get heterosexual marriage resolutions onto state referendums so that it would increase GOP turnout.

[scottditzen]

I believe the Karl Rove "genius" was to get heterosexual marriage resolutions onto state referendums so that it would increase GOP turnout.

Agree. The state referendum in Ohio "angry-eed up the blood" of so many conservatives, and they came out in droves.

[Brett85]

lol...you say that like you swallowed a golf ball and are trying to push it back out...

Not really. It's just that I'm undecided on this issue, but I lean towards that position.

[Brett85]

It looks like Ron is against gay adoption, at least back in 1999.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

[dannno]

Not really. It's just that I'm undecided on this issue, but I lean towards that position.

Ok, I guess that was my imagination.

[dannno]

It looks like Ron is against gay adoption, at least back in 1999.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

Huh, I'd like to hear his reasoning on that.

I would imagine he would be more worried about government forcing organization to adopt to gay people and not be for a ban on organizations adopting to gay people. It sort of contradicts his above statement on protecting voluntary associations.

[Mini-Me]

Not that I'm aware of, I've never read or seen anyone other than myself really pushing for privatized handling of adoption and foster care.

I'm not sure if it's an "official" position, but it's pretty much the only position logically consistent with the NAP. The nice thing about privatization is that everyone wins: If you want to give your child up for adoption, you can choose to go through the organization most in line with your values. Culturally liberal biological parents could choose the "anything goes" agency, whereas Christian conservatives could choose a denominational agency. In the absence of egregious regulations, I get the feeling that churches might even get involved in creating and/or running adoption agencies tuned to their values.

Avoiding all the costly and time-consuming regulations would also allow SO many more children to find homes, so much more quickly. There are tons of families trying to adopt all the time, and tons of babies and children out there to adopt, but the process currently costs an exorbitant amount of money, and it can take years to actually get a child. I have family members who have gone through the process, and it is hell.

[Ranger29860]

Huh, I'd like to hear his reasoning on that.

I would imagine he would be more worried about government forcing organization to adopt to gay people and not be for a ban on organizations adopting to gay people. It sort of contradicts his above statement on protecting voluntary associations.

I am searching through the bill now to find out exactly what it did. Cause its kinda hard to believe its as clear cut as banning gay adoption.

[jmdrake]

Huh, I'd like to hear his reasoning on that.

I would imagine he would be more worried about government forcing organization to adopt to gay people and not be for a ban on organizations adopting to gay people. It sort of contradicts his above statement on protecting voluntary associations.

I clicked the link and then clicked the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106MXw7SZ
It says nothing about gay adoption. It's an appropriations bill for D.C. Part of the bill is a $5M appropriation to encourage adoption. But it says nothing about the sexual orientation of potential parents.

The bill also says that none of the funds can be used to expand health insurance benefits to unmarried couples gay or straight. Both of these sections are parts of a much larger bill.

[Ranger29860]

I clicked the link and then clicked the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c106:./temp/~c106MXw7SZ
It says nothing about gay adoption. It's an appropriations bill for D.C. Part of the bill is a $5M appropriation to encourage adoption. But it says nothing about the sexual orientation of potential parents.

The bill also says that none of the funds can be used to expand health insurance benefits to unmarried couples gay or straight. Both of these sections are parts of a much larger bill.

Well the website mentions and amendment
"Reference: Amendment introduced by Largent, R-OK; Bill HR 2587 ; vote number 1999-346 on Jul 29, 1999"
But i'm not seeing any amendments in the bill (comparing original bill versus one that was passed)

[Brett85]

I'm pretty sure the actual vote was on gay adoption since it was mostly a partisan vote.

[Ranger29860]

Ah found it
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HZ356:

It isn't a ban on gay adoption its a bill to prevent government from further funding adoption.

[jmdrake]

Well the website mentions and amendment
"Reference: Amendment introduced by Largent, R-OK; Bill HR 2587 ; vote number 1999-346 on Jul 29, 1999"
But i'm not seeing any amendments in the bill (comparing original bill versus one that was passed)

Ah. Thanks. Well it looks like the amendment failed, but Ron Paul did vote yes.

http://www.issues2000.org/HouseVote/Party_1999-346.htm
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll346.xml

That said, he initially supported DADT also. Anyways, this is a political minefield.

[Brett85]

Ah found it
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HZ356:

It isn't a ban on gay adoption its a bill to prevent government from further funding adoption.

Yeah you're right.

[Ranger29860]

That's what the bill was about, but I think there was a separate amendment in the bill to ban gay adoptions in DC.

None that i can find and that is the amendment that the website originally posted as a reference.

[jmdrake]

Ah found it
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HZ356:

It isn't a ban on gay adoption its a bill to prevent government from further funding adoption.

Ah. Thanks. So it bars federal funding for joint adoptions by people who are not related by blood or marriage. That would mean the funds could be used for a gay single adopter but not for a cohabiting heterosexual couple joint adopting or a gay couple adopting.

[Ranger29860]

Ah. Thanks. So it bars federal funding for joint adoptions by people who are not related by blood or marriage. That would mean the funds could be used for a gay single adopter but not for a cohabiting heterosexual couple joint adopting or a gay couple adopting.

That was pretty much my understanding of it. Basically if i understand the reasoning it is to prevent 2 people who have no relationship at all from adopting simply for the federal funding.

[ChaosControl]

State issue.
If a state has residents who do not want to allow for homosexuals to adopt, then so be it.
I think anyone who is a decent person should be able to adopt, but I do not support the federal government forcing all states to conform to one standard.

[Ranger29860]

State issue.
If a state has residents who do not want to allow for homosexuals to adopt, then so be it.
I think anyone who is a decent person should be able to adopt, but I do not support the federal government forcing all states to conform to one standard.

If it a private adoption agency with no state or federal funding i have no problem with it.

But can the state openly discriminate against a group of people just based on sexual preference? Would this also apply to race? I do think the best route is to let laws like this pass if they are going to then take them up the court system so they can be overturned based on discrimination.

[ChaosControl]

I'm mixed on whether the state itself can. I dislike the government being able to discriminate at any level, but generally I hate centralized government even more. So I am not sure. But certainly private agencies should be able to do whatever they want.

[jmdrake]

If it a private adoption agency with no state or federal funding i have no problem with it.

But can the state openly discriminate against a group of people just based on sexual preference? Would this also apply to race? I do think the best route is to let laws like this pass if they are going to then take them up the court system so they can be overturned based on discrimination.

No because sexual orientation has not been shown to be a "race" despite years of pseudo science and propaganda trying to prove otherwise. Even the APA has backed off that stance. And some gays are offended by it. See http://*****bychoice.com

[Brett85]

No because sexual orientation has not been shown to be a "race" despite years of pseudo science and propaganda trying to prove otherwise. Even the APA has backed off that stance. And some gays are offended by it. See http://*****bychoice.com

Thanks for pointing that out. I still can't understand people who compare race with sexual orientation. There's no scientific evidence that being gay is a genetic trait. Also, if the state is going to be involved in adoption, it can decide that certain behaviors disqualify people from adopting children. Should an alcoholic or a sex offender be allowed to adopt children? The ultimate solution to all of this would be to simply allow the private adoption agencies to handle the issue, but since that isn't ever going to happen, I don't really have a problem with the government making clear that people who engage in certain types of behaviors can't adopt children.

[Ranger29860]

No because sexual orientation has not been shown to be a "race" despite years of pseudo science and propaganda trying to prove otherwise. Even the APA has backed off that stance. And some gays are offended by it. See http://*****bychoice.com

I didnt mean to imply sexual orientation was a race :D nor do i care what the current world view of homosexuality is and its origins. I was more going for why would the government be able to discriminate based on something that has no effect on what the activity is (in this case adoption).

[Ranger29860]

Also, if the state is going to be involved in adoption, it can decide that certain behaviors disqualify people from adopting children. Should an alcoholic or a sex offender be allowed to adopt children? The ultimate solution to all of this would be to simply allow the private adoption agencies to handle the issue, but since that isn't ever going to happen, I don't really have a problem with the government making clear that people who engage in certain types of behaviors can't adopt children.

But is a gay couple on par with the damage it can cause to children with sex offender? I do agree with privatization. I cant see the justification for basing it on certain types of behaviors that are not detrimental to children . Under that reasoning libertarians cant adopt because of certain types of behaviors if a state decides that :P.

[Mini-Me]

But is a gay couple on par with the damage it can cause to children with sex offender? I do agree with privatization. I cant see the justification for basing it on certain types of behaviors that are not detrimental to children . Under that reasoning libertarians cant adopt because of certain types of behaviors if a state decides that :P.

Indeed. Up next: If you're a gun owner, your home is an unfit environment to raise a child. :rolleyes:

[guitarlifter]

Yes, even discrimination is a right. A right to refuse interaction in any way with another person for any reason should be legal.