Dear Supreme Court Justice: your kids are second best!

[clarinetpower]

huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/john-eastman-national-organization-marriage-adoption-second-best_n_2877225.html

The leader of a prominent anti-gay organization called Supreme Court Chief John Roberts' decision to adopt children the "second-best option," the AP reports.

"You're looking at what is the best course societywide to get you the optimal result in the widest variety of cases. That often is not open to people in individual cases. Certainly adoption in families headed, like Chief Roberts' family is, by a heterosexual couple, is by far the second-best option," said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage.

Eastman was responding to a question about the Chief Justice's position on the rights of same-sex couples. Roberts and his wife adopted two children, Jack and Josie, in 2000. Both children are now 12 years old.

The Supreme Court will consider two high-profile gay rights cases later this month-- whether or not to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8.

As the AP points out, the briefs supporting the federal and California gay marriage bans include a narrow definition of what a family is-- a man, a woman, and their biological children. Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that since gay couples can't naturally have children, they don't deserve to be married. Roberts is considered to be a likely vote against gay marriage.

AmericaBlog points out that this statement is in line with others from the religious right on adoption, including newly-elected Pope Francis, who once called gay adoption "a form of discrimination."

[ILoveJellybeans]

Second best option?????

Seriously? Thats awful.

It doesnt matter whether you gave birth to your child or adopted them, your child is your child and theyre no less important to you if you didnt give birth to them.

[Maggie Mae]

I had to read that a few times before I figured out what the best option was. :lol:

[Ellimenopy]

[list=]

I hope they keep saying ignorant, hateful things about Justices' families. I'm sure that will make the judges very sympathetic to their arguments. :whistle:

[Conuly]

Well, yes, I suppose the best option is for children to remain with their biological families and for those families to never be abusive nor have trouble taking care of them. While it is most likely impossible to eliminate all abuse, we can reduce likelihood of abuse by expanding social services and providing better access to dependable birth control. Less stress on the parents means less chance of child abuse (a statement that should not be construed as saying that abusive behavior can be justified if the parents are sufficiently stressed!) and a better outcome for kids in general.

Since we are not living in our socialist paradise, and some percentage of parents is always likely to be crappy, adoption is an alternative. Once the kids are being loved and cared for, though, it's fair to assume that any adoptive family is better than none at all. What IS this obsession with gays some people have? If they're so concerned that teh scaaaaary gayz are going to adopt kids, let them get off their damn butts and adopt some kids as well. Let them support biological families so they can take care of their own kids, or their own extended family. Until every single kid is out of foster care, I don't even want to HEAR their asinine arguments on the subject. (And even if I did, those arguments are dumb as fuck, but that is not the point.)