Religious right calls Chief Justice Roberts’ adoption of 2 kids “second best”

It’s already being called the religious right’s “47% video.”  John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the lead religious right organization fighting against marriage equality for gay couples, called Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ decision to adopt two children “second best,” less than two weeks before the Supreme Court considers two high-profile gay marriage cases.

John Eastman, chairman of NOM, told AP:

“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 also teaches law at Chapman University law school in Orange, Calif. [emphasis added]

Chief Justice Roberts and his wife Jane have two adopted children, John and Josephine.  No comment from the Roberts children as to whether they find the Chief Justice a “second best” dad.

What do “marriage defenders” have against adopted kids?

We’ve written before about the leitmotif of contempt that many anti-gay bigots seem to have for adopted kids.

Second-best dad, John Roberts.

Second-best dad, John Roberts.

Case in point: the Catholic church overall, and Catholic Charities in particular.  The Catholics don’t even blink at the notion of cutting off services to adopted kids in order to take a swipe at gays.  Catholic Charities has cut off adoptions and/or foster care services in IllinoisMassachusetts and DC.  When it came juggling their hatred of gays with the welfare of children, the gay-haters in Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church went for gay-bashing and ignored the kids.

Pope Francis is an adoption-hater too

Then there’s the new Pope, Francis, formerly Bergoglio, who called the adoption of children by gay parents “a form of discrimination.”  Here’s then-Cardinal Bergoglio in a letter opposing gay marriage in 2010 (translated from the Spanish):

The people of Argentina will face in the coming weeks, a situation whose outcome may seriously injure the family.This is the bill on same-sex marriage. The issue here is identity, and the survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake is the lives of so many children who are discriminated against in advance, depriving them of growing up with a mother and father as God desires. At stake is a direct rejection of God’s law, also engraved in our hearts.

And what does Pope Francis call being an orphan with no parents at all?

Interesting how Francis, along with the religious right anti-gay haters, just assumes that gay parents are somehow stealing their adopted children from straight parents.  The very reason kids are in adoption services is because they have no parents.  If they were so wanted, they’d already have parents, adoptive or otherwise.  But the very idea that the new Pope doesn’t even understand the plight of kids in adoption, that they have no home, no family, no parents, is shocking.

It’s not like adopted kids were “stolen” from their “wonderful” birth parents

Not to mention, where does the Pope think gay parents get their adoptive kids from?  Usually heterosexual parents who didn’t want them.  If anyone deprived these kids of God’s plan it was the heterosexuals who birthed them and then gave them away, not the gay parents who provided them the family they were dearly lacking.

I also take issue with those who argue that Eastman was simply stating that it would be “better” for adopted kids to have stayed with their birth parents. That seems an awfully naive thing to say. It would be better to stay with your birth parents who either don’t want to, or can’t, care for you?  Really?  That doesn’t even make sense. Adoption isn’t ever the second-best option for these kids, it’s the only option because the birth parents are gone.

The real issue here is which home will provide a better environment for the child to grow up in.  The anti-gay bigots just sort of knee-jerk assume it’s a hetero married home – any hetero married home – because that’s the policy agenda they’re pushing.  But they’re not looking at the home itself, at the parents themselves, when making these odd blanket statements about married heteros being better parents.  They’re not better first-best parents if they’re abusive parents.  Not if they beat their kids.  Not if they’re crack addicts.  And not if they’re in prison or dead or have simply abandoned their child.

The underlying premise here is almost the notion that parents who adopt kids, straight or gay parents, have somehow “stolen” the kids from an otherwise good home.

Adoptive parents are real parents, NOM

But there’s something else particularly nasty and harmful about NOM’s comments here.  For adoptive kids, and adoptive parents, the issue of whether the child is your “real” child, and whether the parents are your “real” parents, is a serious and hurtful one.  First, we hear from someone who was adopted:

What bothers me about people who find out I’m adopted is that they always have the most typical response, “Do you want to find your real mom?” Are you serious!?

My real mom is an accomplished author and teacher. That’s my mom. There’s no such thing as a REAL mom and a fake mom. Sure, there’s my birthmom, but I don’t ever care or think about her. She did a very selfless thing to give me up, so why would I want to bug her? That’s incredibly selfish of me. My dad, he’s British and is an Architect and is one of the nicest people ever and is one of the hardest working people I’ve ever met. Those are my REAL parents. So when you ask me if I want to find my REAL parents, I’ll simply tell you they live in Michigan.

“Second best” hits like a fist

More from an adoption expert at the National Adopting Information Clearinghouse on the “second best” problem:

 Adopted children may feel particularly or overly sensitive about the fact that they do not resemble other family members and believe “that their parents have settled for second best,” says Dr. Schechter  [Dr. Marshall Schechter, a psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine and a nationally recognized expert on adoption] . “No amount of reassuring can diminish what adopted persons perceive as a stunning difference (between themselves and other family members). They may develop fantasies, both positive and negative, about their birth family, and it often hampers their ability to move on with their lives.”

And guess who helse adopted a child? Clarence Thomas

Not that there’s a chance in hell he’ll ever side with us on anything, but Clarence Thomas also has an adopted child:

The two justices who have adopted children are considered likely votes against gay marriage. Chief Justice John Roberts is the father of two children, Jack and Josie, both 12. They were adopted four months apart as babies in 2000, after Roberts and his wife, Jane, then 45, spent several years trying to adopt. The Roberts family discussed the adoption for a biography of the chief justice that was aimed at young readers and published in 2006.

Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia, took custody of Thomas’s grandnephew, Mark, when he was 6, in 1998. Soon after they were married in 1987, the Thomases decided they would not have children of their own, author Ken Foskett wrote in his biography, “Judging Thomas.” Mark’s father had been in and out of legal trouble and his mother was raising three other children on her own. Thomas also has a biological child from his first marriage, which ended in divorce.

Now you get the gist of the subtle contempt that comes through many anti-gay activists when considering the merits of adopted children.  Whether it’s Pope Francis or Catholic Charities, who think kids are better off with no family at all than with parents who are gay, or whether it’s NOM, that feels even heterosexual adoptions are only “second best,” the bigots really do have a hard time hiding their true selves.

(H/t to my friend Scott Wooledge for spotting this.)


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

230 Responses to “Religious right calls Chief Justice Roberts’ adoption of 2 kids “second best””

  1. Janise Grubber says:

    Wait till they are all in california then drop a nuke, much cheaper than sending these queers to
    psychologists and psychiatrists.

  2. Every major Christian denomination is struggling with itself, mostly over gay marriage &/or the ordination of gay clergy.

  3. honeybee8 says:

    Here in Washington state we know all about the deceptive tactics of the well funded homosexual movement. We have been trying to keep them out of our schools for over 20 years. Now that
    they have gained Equal Opportunity status (the only immoral group to do that – where is that right for prostitutes & gamblers & pedophiles?), they have forced schools to promote homosexuality in their
    sex education classes, anti-bullying literature, and the new HIV Awareness for 1st – 7th graders. The children of today think of homosexuality as the choice of the hip new generation. And why shouldn’t
    they? Not only is it taught in the schools, but the TV shows, which are carefully choreographed by homo promoters, ingrains in them that manly men are beasts and womanly women are stupid or weak.

    The equal opportunity act for sexual orientation should be rescinded because it infringes on the moral and conscious liberty of all Americans.

  4. honeybee8 says:

    Every American has the right to the pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn’t infringe on others rights. What homosexuals do in the bedroom is their business and shouldn’t be against the law. However, the benefits for marriage were created on the basis of a normal moral marriage between a man and woman for starting a family. You can’t steal the word ‘marriage’ just to steal benefits made for a different relationship.

    If, as Ellen D. has been promoting, it is for ‘showing our love for each other’, then create a subcategory of Domestic Partner and call it SSIP = Same Sex Intimate Partner. They can have ceremonies and print fancy certificates and feel warm and fuzzy.

    But that isn’t what they want, they want to force everyone to promote them as normal and moral. They sued (&won) against a tee shirt company that refused to print homo promo tee shirts. Wake up America!

    They are infringing on the right of American citizens to choose not to support immoral causes. Churches are being sued, and soon pastors will be sent to jail. Are only the immoral allowed the pursuit of happiness?

  5. As a birth mother, at 16, in 1971 there was not an option to keep my baby. She was wanted but the hospital and doctor told me that they had a childless couple that would pay the bills for the birth, and told me that my aunt and uncles’s military health insurance would not pay. At 16 and naive I didn’t want to burden them with the bills so said yes to the adoption. Not every child given up for adoption is “not wanted or thrown away”. I found her when she turned 18 and we have been “family” for 23 happy years even though she lives in another state with her husband and two children.

  6. Ingrid Dyer says:

    It truly is basically unlawful to help discriminate against some sort of employee with regard to his / her values as well as routines which might be not the same as that will involving his / her superiors or perhaps co-employees. Spiritual splendour, even so, is reasonably typical with Chicago as there are lots of enterprise organizations with all kinds of staff.
    To know about law please click
    http://www.dallasjustice.com/

  7. Skeptical Cicada says:

    The Regnerus study has been repudiated by the very journal that initially published it, and we now know that the anti-gay group that funded it demanded that it produce an anti-gay result. That you can’t even describe the Regnerus study accurately tells us you really have no idea what you’re even talking about but are spouting some kind of anti-gay pablum.

  8. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Studies have repeatedly and consistently shown that children raised by committed same-sex couples fare no worse on any measure than children raised by married straight couples. The matter is canvassed in the amicus brief by the American Sociological Association in the pending marriage cases. http://38.106.4.56/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=1230

    Eastman was manifestly dismissing the Chief Justice’s family as inferior because his children are adopted instead of biological children. The attack is fully consistent with NOM’s decision to defend gay marriage bans as being about the supposed superiority of biological families.

    Requiring adoption services to perform their functions without discrimination does not violate the Free Exercise Clause, which only prohibits laws that single out religion for discriminatory treatment. If Catholic Charities does not wish to comply with the law, it may relinquish its lucrative contracts with various governments and allow someone capable of complying with the law to receive do that work and receive that funding. The Catholic Church has no constitutional right to receive money from the government to perform a public function.

    And, dear, no one gives a damn whether you ever support same-sex marriage. History is simply stepping around your tantrum and moving forward regardless.

  9. My two sisters are adopted. I can’t think of a more christian thing to do than to adopt a child in need. What is wrong with these people?

  10. Ninong says:

    The basis of his “proven facts” statement is the Regnerus study, which has been called “bullshit” by Dr. Darren Sherkat, a member of the board of the journal that published it. According to Dr. Sherkat, who was tasked with conducting an internal audit of the study, it should have been “disqualified immediately” for publication.

  11. karmanot says:

    Catholics believe in virgin birth so there is always that option.

  12. karmanot says:

    Proof? Well, polyfiber suits, plastic seat covers, TunaMac Fridays, big ass American cars, Big Mac cuisine, vacations at Disney Land or Vegas and drive through churches.—for starters. :-)

  13. karmanot says:

    ok

  14. Badgerite says:

    Very good post. Well reasoned and true. Especially that part dealing with the new Pope’s views on the issue. The idea that because someone is gay they cannot have a caring, nurturing nature is ridiculous and flies in the face of what is observably true. I was raised Catholic. It was the faith of my parents. It pains me to see the Church on the wrong side of what is a moral issue relating to decent treatment of other people. Happy, thriving people are happy thriving people. That is God’s plan, is it not? And how is attempting to stand in the way of happy, thriving people (adult or child) in accord with God’s plan?

  15. Ninong says:

    I can’t believe you would seriously consider the Regnerus study a basis for your “proven fact” statement? In the future I suggest you do your own sourcing and not let Focus on the Family and similar organizations cause you to make a fool of yourself in public. You say “the Regnerus study used a sample size larger than many national polls and had much more depth to it” yet only two of the study’s respondents actually lived with a lesbian couple their entire childhoods. Regnerus himself has admitted he didn’t even ask about sexual orientation.

    You realize, I assume, that the University of Texas is investigating whether this study constitutes scientific misconduct and that a member of the board of the journal “Social Science Research” that published this study has completed an internal audit of it and called it “bullshit.” It has been criticized by major medical groups and over 200 professors around the country yet people like you go around using it as the basis of your “proven fact” statements. Pathetic!
    http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/27/596251/gay-parenting-bullshit/

  16. Stev84 says:

    The Catholic Church has certainly done it in Spain and some South American countries. They stole babies from mothers they deemed unsuitable, told them their children died and sold them to “proper” Catholics

  17. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    Things aren’t really sinking in, are they? The truth is that I disagree with you, but that has not been the issue. My only point is that you failed to give support for your “proven facts”. I alway taught my students that they really need to support their arguments with at least four documented proofs. You have yet to offer one proof.

  18. SteveAR says:

    I’ll bet that if I mention the Regnerus study, you’ll give me all kinds of excuses, but not actual proof, of why that study is invalid. Then you’ll cite studies claiming there is no difference, except for the fact that the studies claiming no difference (which actually proves my point about children being raised by their still-married biological parents) had sample sizes so small as to be laughable, whereas the Regnerus study used a sample size larger than many national polls and had much more depth to it. But like I said, you’ll probably dismiss it either out of hand or with excuses. Because according to same-sex “marriage” activists, no study can refute the so-called “civil right” of same-sex “marriage”.

  19. mike31c says:

    Well I am curious…It is usually NOT gay couples having all these kids in the first place so why are these RWNJ’s having an objection to a loving family (even if it is Roberts) adopting them?

    Sad reality that RWNJ’s do NOT care about the kids after they are born.

  20. MAP says:

    Anyway any organization can get an amicus brief stating these comments from NOM and The Pope to SOTUS before March 26,27 to make sure Roberts and Thomas hear this?

  21. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    When I’m wrong, I will admit it. I was wrong. You really are dense.

    I am not saying there were studies proving that children are better off with single individuals or gay couples. All I said is that your argument lacks any proof that your “proven facts” are facts that are proved only in your head. I doubt your point, because you have no proof.

  22. SteveAR says:

    “I am not refuting your point. I am seriously doubting your point.”

    So you are saying there are studies saying it is better for children to be raised by a single parent, by an unmarried heterosexual couple, or a homosexual couple. Prove it. Because that is the only way you can show me you can legitimately doubt my point.

  23. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    I doubt that you are that dense, so I must conclude that you are choosing to be that dense. Much of your argument is based on what you call proven facts. However, you seem unable to point to the studies that developed those proven facts. As far as anyone reading your argument can tell, there is nothing there that would prove that you didn’t make up your own proven facts. All I’m asking is for you to reference these studies. I am not refuting your point. I am seriously doubting your point.

  24. Mighty says:

    I am no fan of Roberts but this attack was disgusting. Adoption is a good thing! It is awesome he chose to take in, raise and love children who otherwise wouldn’t have had a good home. Why are these people so cruel and inhuman? I will never understand them.

  25. SteveAR says:

    Hmmm. You’ve given me something to think about. I’m thinking that is one of the most ridiculous arguments someone could have presented to “refute” my point. But I have no doubt you could come back with something even more ridiculous.

  26. Mike_in_the_Tundra says:

    It’s a proven fact that the moon is made of green cheese. “Proven facts” are useless unless you are able to cite the source of those facts. I can’t prove my proven fact. How about you?

  27. SteveAR says:

    So much garbage in one post.

    Aravosis – “John Eastman, the chairman of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), the lead religious right organization fighting against marriage equality for gay couples, called Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ decision to adopt two children ‘second best,’ less than two weeks before the Supreme Court considers two high-profile gay marriage cases.

    What do ‘marriage defenders’ have against adopted kids?”

    Apparently, Aravosis would have us believe Eastman slammed Roberts and adoption. The only way that could be true is if one were to willingly ignore logic and the English language. In no way is this a slam by Eastman upon Roberts. It’s a proven fact that it is best for children when the children’s married biological parents raise them. It’s also a proven fact that when the biological parents won’t raise their own children, it is better for those children to be adopted and raised by a man and a woman married to each other; although there is plenty of evidence showing children can be successfully raised outside of marriage, this doesn’t invalidate the premise that it would be better if children were raised by a man and woman married to each other, especially children raised by their married biological parents. Since one and only one item in a list can ever be thought of as best, Eastman’s statement could hardly be considered derogatory towards the Chief Justice.

    Aravosis – “Case in point: the Catholic church overall, and Catholic Charities in particular. The Catholics don’t even blink at the notion of cutting off services to adopted kids in order to take a swipe at gays. Catholic Charities has cut off adoptions and/or foster care services in Illinois, Massachusetts and DC. When it came juggling their hatred of gays with the welfare of children, the gay-haters in Catholic Charities and the Catholic Church went for gay-bashing and ignored the kids.”

    How awful. It’s too bad Aravosis decided to create an argument out of his lie instead of telling the truth. In fact, Democrats running Illinois, Massachusetts, and DC were all set to violate the Free Exercise Clause by threatening Catholic Charities with extremely expensive discrimination lawsuits if the religious organization didn’t consider placing children in the homes of homosexual couples, a relationship the Church does not recognize based on its religious tenets, tenets the Church has every right under the Constitution to practice. Instead of using its funds for the children, Catholic Charities would have been required to use that money in defending itself in court in what very well would have been frivolous lawsuits, money they probably would not have been able to recover. If there was a threat to children, it came from Democrats, not the Catholic Church or Catholic Charities. Of course, this is an extension of the hatred Democrats have for children since they believe it is better to butcher children by the millions before those children are born.

    What’s even more troubling is how a Democrat like Aravosis hates the Free Speech Clause as well. It doesn’t matter to him that people and religions freely have the right to practice their religious beliefs and the right to speak out against things like same-sex “marriage”. For Aravosis, the government should only allow speech that supports same-sex “marriage”, while anything less is considered “hate” speech and subject to unconstitutional government-sanctioned penalties. At the same time, Aravosis will claim his libelous statements are an expression of his right to free speech and a free press, even though the Supreme Court has said there is no right to commit either libel or slander.

    I will never support same-sex “marriage” unless and until those who advocate for it accept the First Amendment and refute any attempt to violate it as they have. And as far as I’m concerned, it is long past time the government gets out of the marriage business.

  28. Probably the Church, for its part, would prefer that parentless children be brought up in their own Church-run orphanages, in order to be properly indoctrinated. Consider all the Italian and Spanish people with the old catch-all surname Esposito (exposed, i.e., abandoned, and left to the tender mercies of nuns and priests).

  29. Ninong says:

    Clean, comfortable womb in quiet neighborhood to let by respectable, college-educated, single, 24-yr-old woman, doing research on her doctoral thesis on RNA interference. Rent negotiable.

  30. Jim Olson says:

    Indeed. The stated idea here is that families with adopted children are second-class. And are to be treated as such. Much like they do with EVERY other group of people who do not fit their narrow, bigoted, closed minded tiny little world view.

  31. BeccaM says:

    No, not really, and I didn’t mean it to sound like criticism. It’s just one of those terms that hits me as weird and unpleasant. Truthfully, I don’t think there is a better word for a woman who is usually a hired hatchery and incubator. Or rented womb. lol

  32. Jim Olson says:

    Actually, it was. And you don’t know what you’re talking about, either about adoption or about ‘yellow journalism’.

  33. tamarz says:

    And they’re incredibly inconsistent. If marriage is for procreation, shouldn’t NOM be against infertile people or people who are beyond childbearing years or people who choose not to have children getting married?

  34. tamarz says:

    yes, but I’d reword what you said to “every family that has ever been lucky enough to have a child through adoption.”
    We didn’t adopt our youngest because we’re good and charitable. We adopted her because we desperately wanted another child and we are amazingly lucky to have her in our lives.

  35. tamarz says:

    As the parent of both a biological child and a child who was adopted, I’m outraged by this. There are plenty of wonderful parents around and whether their children came to them through adoption or through birth is irrelevant. And their sexual orientation is equally irrelevant.
    I hope this statement from Eastman helps Roberts see the unreal geography occupied by groups like NOM. NOM is a misnomer — they’re not really for marriage or they would be promoting it for everyone.

  36. karmanot says:

    “I am pro Freedom and feel it is wrong to discriminate and judge others.” Don’t worry, I’ll do it for you. Somebody has to do the heavy lifting.

  37. karmanot says:

    Go away

  38. karmanot says:

    pppfffffttttt

  39. So Joseph having adopted Jesus as his son, is now second best. Wow didn’t see that one coming.

  40. Ninong says:

    Becca,
    Is there a preferable way to differentiate the difference? That’s the phrase I have always seen used when describing a surrogacy where the woman bearing the child has no genetic biological connection to the baby. How would you describe it?

  41. 2of6 says:

    Yes, but then ya see, Jeeeebus can return to the urth an awl the gud churchafarians will liv happylie evah aifta!

  42. and I am not saying this against gay adoption, I am not against it, I am pro Freedom and feel it is wrong to discriminate and judge others.

  43. ‘It’s not like adopted kids were “stolen” from their “wonderful” birth parents’ sorry, but sometimes they are, I have seen it happen(and this is no conspiracy bs, this is for real)!

  44. olandp says:

    I spend very little of my time thinking about Clarence Thomas, he just isn’t worth the effort. But now we find out that hie “marriage” isn’t real in God’s plan. It is a sham and a fake. He and his Catholic wife decided not to have children when the reason for marriage is to produce and raise the next generation, with the children tied to their biological mom and dad, because children need a mom and a dad. Their biological mom and dad. How un-American and un-Christian of them.

  45. Ben Weston says:

    brava

  46. BeccaM says:

    Those prisons and workhouses aren’t gonna populate themselves, y’know. Gotta create a ready pool of discards and rejects, deliberately inculcated with lessons of submission and low self-esteem, to fuel the ravening corporate maws for generations to come.

  47. karmanot says:

    Only slightly better than ‘alien pod’ I’d say.

  48. karmanot says:

    Thanks for the thesis. I understand better. And you are right about KS. Throw a tomato at Fred P for me. :-)

  49. BeccaM says:

    Bingo, exactly right. They can’t argue from a religious angle, because then all the members of religions that DO support same-sex marriages can argue that they are being denied their freedom of expression. Can’t argue from a ‘tradition’ angle because tradition included bans on interracial marriage, the chattel status of women and, if you go back far enough, formalized polygamy.

    So now they’re trying to make it about having unplanned babies and procreation in general, but their rationale is nothing but a two-legged stool. If civil marriage exists only to provide societal support for heterosexual breeding couples, then clearly infertile and childless-by-choice couples have no guaranteed right to be married. Or to put it another way, if this is the main (or only?) reason gay and lesbian couples should be denied marriage rights, then by the same argument those rights should also be denied to hetero couples who can’t or won’t have kids.

  50. BeccaM says:

    Yes, disagreement about ‘natural mother and father’ being best by definition and default. Being raised by adoptive parents would likely have been, by far, a better situation than the family I grew up in.

    Parental fitness is not determined by genetic imperative.

    Regardless whether it was Eastman’s intention only to single out gay and lesbian headed families, he nevertheless used language — and a very specific example, citing Chief Justice John Robert’s family — indicating he meant that adoption was always a “second best” situation for any child. Which is a rubbish argument to make, and an incredibly stupid one given Justice Roberts’ position.

  51. So when is the big schism going to happen ?

  52. BeccaM says:

    Every time I see the words “gestational surrogate”, I think of The Handmaid’s Tale… It’s such a dry and dehumanizing term, no?

  53. Papa Bear says:

    Strange how close that is to the first rule of advertisement: to make you feel guilty about what you have…

  54. Momof2 says:

    I’m an adoptive parent and love my children more than life itself. But the adoption industry is not clean and without issues. Children ARE taken from their birth families. Adoption sometimes involves outright pressure, outright coercion, baby stealing, lying, and pressuring of birth families. Some countries have started using DNA testing because women were relinquishing children, but were not actually the child’s birth mother. The DNA testing was started to prove that the person placing the child was truly the birth parent.

    I wish it weren’t so…that every single child who is available for adoption was truly the result of a loving, free choice by a birth family. But money is involved, and because of that, it’s not always a pretty picture. The first option for children, imho, is that they should be raised by their families of birth, in their country of birth. Obviously, that’s not always an option, and adoption fills that gap. I believe that adoption is a second option, but not second best option.

  55. Ninong says:

    Here’s “proof” that Chief Justice Roberts is allegedly heterosexual: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120628055133-john-roberts-05-horizontal-gallery.jpg

    Here’s proof that he was at least gay-friendly in his younger years: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/ACF9F.jpg

  56. perljammer says:

    The problem with your parents isn’t that they’re Christian; the problem is that they’re judgmental and possibly borderline sociopathic.

  57. Ninong says:

    It was a despicable deliberately misleading characterization of the facts. They claimed that McCain had “fathered an illegitimate black child,” when what they meant by “fathered” was adolpted and what they meant by “illegitimate black child” was his orphaned Bangladeshi daughter, Bridget.

  58. Stev84 says:

    They think life begins at erection and ends at birth. They truly don’t give a shit about children once they are born.

  59. Ninong says:

    So NOM is against adoption? Wow! What creeps! I wonder what they think about using a gestational surrogate? Tagg Romney’s last three children were born using a gestational surrogate. In fact, three of Mitt Romney’s sons used surrogates. Not exactly the same as adoption but I’m sure NOM would have something to say about it. Maybe they might wonder why Tagg’s last five children happened to all be boys? Selection much?

    Anyway, NOM is always good for a laugh. I wonder if it’s possible they could piss off Roberts enough that he would vote in favor of gay marriage? Probably not but you never know. It would nice if the decisions on these two cases were 6-3 instead of the expected 5-4. We’ll see…

  60. Mary O'Grady says:

    Healthy white newborn babies often come on the adoption market because their mothers have been lied to and systematically manipulated by social workers and other adoption agency types who make a good living off other people’s misery.

  61. BeccaM says:

    What’s ironic and funny is due to advances in IVF technology, we’re pretty close to being able to combine the genetic material from two male or two female donors into one viable fertilized egg.

    But you’re right, that’s the core of their new ‘argument’ (if illogic can be considered such). Always they ignore the other half of what they’re saying, that by their rationale, infertile or childless-by-choice couples should not be allowed to marry.

  62. BeccaM says:

    Having grown up in an abusive, dysfunctional household, I knew from the start that my birth was unplanned and the result of parents sufficiently faithful Catholics that they did not use contraception. The timing was terrible — my folks did not have a permanent place to live, and were temporarily with an aunt because both of their parents disapproved of the marriage. My parents were dirt-poor, too — and along I came, an extremely premature baby with the attendant health problems of being born at the edge of viability in the early 60s.

    As I got older, unlike these ignorant “birth baby better” attitudes, I used to envy adopted kids, because there was never any doubt that their parents not only wanted them, specifically, but had to go through a lot of work to make it happen. They had to prove they’d be good parents, and the kid they picked was one out of so many. I wanted to be that girl, singled out for being me, and just some accident of birth, knowing that my unplanned arrival was inconvenient, expensive, and involuntary.

    Given all the fantasies I had about suddenly being adopted by some family who would want and love me, it’s funny to hear all these morons go on as if it’s inherently better to be someone’s biological child. As far as I’m concerned, the only things that matter are “Is this child loved?” and “Are the parent or parents doing the best they can to raise this kid in a healthy, sane, and nurturing environment?”

  63. KingCranky says:

    James is right, I blogged about this very issue way back in 2008, and while it was never definitively proven that the Bush Jr campaign was officially involved, that’s a logical conclusion to draw.

    McCain’s Worst Sin, Of Omission

    What made the attacks on McCain’s adopted daughter even worse is that he let them slide, he didn’t go after her attackers.

    In fact, McCain hired some of the same political operatives who smeared Bridget McCain in the 2000 GOP primary to help run his 2008 campaign.

  64. Mimihaha says:

    Spellcheck is your friend.

  65. tsuki says:

    I had a sperm donor and a dad. I wouldn’t be here without the donor, but I definitely would not be the person I am without my dad.

  66. KingCranky says:

    It’s always amusing when moral absolutists attempt moral relativism, terms like “self-debunking” and “own goal” immediately spring to mind.

  67. Skeptical Cicada says:

    My problem with this interpretation is that I just don’t think NOM is self-aware or living in reality enough to realize that they’ve lost the marriage crusade–as opposed to their funders, whom I do think realize that more money sunk into that hole is wasted.

  68. clarknt67 says:

    It stopped being a generalization when Eastman named Justice John Roberts by name, that would make it very specific, not general. Roberts then becomes an illustration of his generalization that adopted kids are somehow lesser.

  69. masterjace says:

    This same thing was tried and almost work here in KS, and I know its the same-thing being done in this case. Like it or not they are pulling the Gay card, he will be a scapegoat or of some other use to them because of it. As a way to nullify his vote, to appeal the loss, or just blame the loss on him. They can’t accept the fact that they lost because they are wrong, that hate is wrong, and they need to look at see what century they are living in, in fact what year it is. The days of old scary white men tell everyone what, and how to live are almost over. Read a census report once in a while see where the real power is about to be at. Its not as if we can stop time, change things back again. Even if you could I would not want to let you. And I am a white man, A proud Gay White Man, that has seen the writing on the wall for a very long time. If they don’t like us, they can move to some other country that has no Gay’s if they can find one. Since there is no place on the earth with any of us, that we do not naturally accrue that should tell them something. Gay marriage then Gay Right are just around the corner and there is nothing that the Right can do to stop them. Its evolve or die off at this point and judging from the fact that now more then ever fewer people have a religious affiliation, or want one. I would say that the choice to die has been made for them. We no longer need a social group the excludes others based in hate, judges everyone, lies all the time, and covets money, material things over human life. Make ridicules claims then relies on superstitions to back them up. There is not god, and if there is, and he hates us gay’s, and we cannot reproduce. We have to adopt and indoctrinate according to the hate monger Christian groups then why does he keep making so many of us. Is the factory broken and short on parts so it can only turn out so many “Normal/Straight” babies a year? They want to treat us gay’s as damaged, broken, missing parts, pieces so I guess the factory up in heaven either needs to shut down or find a better parts distributor. Or you all need to accept the fact that if you buy into your superstitious BS that your God in making us the way we are meant to be and that is Gay.

    I tend to keep a close eye on my enemy so I know what the Christian hate groups around me are doing. I live in KS, the Christian Hate Capital of the planet. The State is ran and controlled by the Christian Hate Mafia Phil Cosby, Phil Kline, Sam shorts stain, Kris KKK Kobach, WBC Westboro Baptist Church. Just to name a few and that is a small sample, I could talk about the connections to Buster Brown Stain or Sammy no pants our Governor elect. Again the statement was a clear attack on Justice Roberts and his sexuality and to claim that he plays on my team. And I would expect during or right after the trail if you want to call it that they will even make an direct statement calling him that. I call it a trial because the Right is going to be busing in every Dog and Phony Pony that they can dig up to try and swing this in there favor, no matter how much they have to lie, manipulate the truth or pull it out of there backsides. The part about being sworn in will go out the window. That or there vodo book they are going to be swearing in on will burst into flames if there were a real god.

  70. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Thanks for the contribution and the amicus brief!

  71. Naja pallida says:

    Instills the first requirement of religion: Guilt about being who you are.

  72. Lucious Leyden says:

    With enemy’s like this who needs friends. Keep up the good work of showing Christian values A$$holes.

  73. Drew2u says:

    Dan Savage has great advice for gay people who come out to their ones: you have one year to whine, piss, moan, and throw a tantrum. After that, if you are not over it, you will never hear from me again.

    It sounds like you’ve given your parents much longer than a year. Give them the ultimatum that they need to recognize your family as their family otherwise they will lose you. If that does not bother them, then you will have a clean conscience and enjoy your life with those who care about all of you.

  74. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Oh, imagine that–EVEN GAY! Can you believe it? The gays even managed to raise a kid even though they’re gay! Remarkable. And I thought the gays were incompetent to do anything.

  75. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Stop your shilling, Paul. We’ve seen your other posts of this same comment.

    Degrading anything other than procreation is crucial to NOM’s argument against gay marriage. As they’ve been saying for years, marriage is only for procreation. They’ve been maligning infertile straight couples and adoptive families that way for years.

    He said exactly what he meant–that adoptive parenting is inferior to biological parenting. It’s crucial to their nutty procreation obsession that defines a “true” family as only a father, a mother, and the children they produce through procreation.

  76. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Ah, the shilling Paul Cigna is back, re-posting his same comment that offers no defense of its bare statement.

  77. We aren’t silent – we just don’t get as much press coverage. There are millions of progressive Christians out there.

  78. PeteWa says:

    I always think of this when this particular troll shows up:
    Fritz A Len(t)z (March 9, 1887 in Pflugrade, Pomerania – July 6, 1976 in Göttingen) was a German geneticist, member of the Nazi party, and influential specialist in “racial hygiene” (also called eugenics) during the Third Reich, one of the leading German theorists of “scientific racism” which legitimized the Nazi racial policies, starting with the 1935 Nuremberg Laws.

    strange moniker to choose.

  79. FLL says:

    I think they anticipate defeat. They may be spitefully looking for something—anything—to explain their defeat. After the decision, they could say: “The only reason we lost was because of John Roberts and his stupid personal life.” But it’s really no excuse at all. Even without Roberts’ vote, the Court would vote in favor of equality by a 5-4 margin. Roberts’ vote would make it 6-3. Don’t you think the Religious Right is grasping at straws? 5-4 or 6-3, they lose with or without Roberts.

  80. clarknt67 says:

    You know, I thought it was pure stupidity when I read it. But maybe they are setting up a narrative of judicial nullification. Preemptively attacking Roberts so their base will go along with attacking him after the decision.

  81. karmanot says:

    that’s funny!

  82. karmanot says:

    But, but they are pro life!

  83. karmanot says:

    “What was being implied by saying that Justice Roberts adopted Children
    are second best is nothing more then a thinly veiled attempt to say that
    Roberts himself is “Gay” Oh please, what rubbish. You need to clean of your tinfoil hat. I think your brain is withering.

  84. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Yes, you’re right. Their real motivation is simply moral hostility toward gay people and gay relationships. This is an interesting study in the problems of trying to trump up a secular policy to justify a religious objection. Whereas the religious objection focuses perfectly and exclusively on gay couples, trying to hide it behind a procreation policy causes it to lose that focus and hit other people, like infertile straight couples. They sacrifice focus in an effort to present themselves as not simply acting out of religious chauvinism.

  85. Kids struggle with everything. Humans struggle with everything. Even if it were true that kids were better with their biological parents, this was raised in the context of an argument against letting gay couples wed, and it’s totally irrelevant to that discussion in any case.

  86. karmanot says:

    Try this: Put a little black baby in the Christmas manger and watch the action. One year we put two Josephs in the manger and the house cleared out by noon.

  87. karmanot says:

    Jesus?

  88. karmanot says:

    But it does take some talent to drop it in a field and keep on planting. Did she tell you that? Grandma’s know stuff that would make your hair stand on end. :-)

  89. FLL says:

    Yes, the anti-equality people know that even though the procreation argument is misguided, it’s their only shot. They must figure that a bad argument is better than no argument at all.

  90. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Exactly right. I’m not sure why this is surprising to people. Their constant refrain is that marriage is for procreation. They have demeaned the love of the couple and any other possible function of marriage to reduce it do a crude reproductive operation. The second they admit that love, commitment, adoption, or even childrearing can be purposes of marriage, they lose the ability to exclude gay couples because gay couples are capable of all those other things too.

  91. Randy Riddle says:

    There’s a whole thread that runs through conservative evangelicals that puts a premium on “bloodlines” and “purity” – they see “families” as only defined through a strict interpretation of Old Testament scripture that God’s “chosen” should “be fruitful and multiply”. Those that can’t have children or won’t are viewed as working against “God’s plan”.

    It has nothing to do with love, charity or doing the right thing. It’s all centered on passing judgement on anyone that doesn’t live by your own standards for what “God” supposedly wants.

  92. karmanot says:

    And I just love gay Penguins!

  93. Skeptical Cicada says:

    But you see where this is coming from, right? Demeaning adoption is crucial to the central argument against gay marriage: procreation. What’s the constant refrain? Marriage is for procreation, and for nothing else. The second they concede that adoptive families fit marriage just as well, they’ve lost their anti-gay argument, because gay individuals and couples can also adopt children in most states. This is all coming from their choice to make the anti-gay stand on the procreation argument. To elevate procreation as the be-all-and-end-all of marriage necessarily requires relegating everything else, including infertile straight couples and adoptive families.

  94. karmanot says:

    Now, now, just because they found you in a toilet, there is no need to be bitter.

  95. FLL says:

    I think you’re on target as far as your conclusion that the Religious Right is using coded language here, and I agree with your interpretation of that code. However, I think that they’re doing this as a sign of defeat. They can see defeat looming, and out of spite, they want to blame that defeat on John Roberts’ personal life. But make no mistake. This is the spite of people who are convinced they’re going to lose. Many would call the Religious Right sore losers. I think they’re just losers.

  96. Kokuanani says:

    I understand that these idiots HAVE an idiotic prejudice. No, I don’t understand WHY or any other element of their “thinking” [sic].

  97. dora says:

    This just makes me cry. This should be a win-win situation for children who need a loving family and for couples who want to be parents. People who not only are filled with hate but are so disgusting to put their own philosophical beliefs above the happiness of others should not have any say-so in this matter. My mother was orphaned at the age of 4 and was sent out of state to grow up in an “orphanage.” It makes me so sad and angry that she grew up and lived the rest of her life without parents. I know she would have loved to have been brought up in a single family home regardless of whether her parents were both males or both females.

  98. karmanot says:

    Yep, all bones and scales.

  99. karmanot says:

    Nothing more family values than making kids feel like ‘used children’ purchased at a bargain sale.

  100. adampertman says:

    Let’s see … if I wanted to be nice, I would say that the “second best” comment is uninformed, is based on something other than reality, and lacks both understanding and compassion. If I were to take off my hat as head of the Donaldson Adoption Institute and simply comment as a father and human being . . . well, I’ll leave the invective to others and simply say that I hope the Chief Justice is paying attention as he decides how to rule. The Adoption Institute has filed an amicus brief in the case, and here’s a link to our most-recent research (yes, research!) on the subject at hand: http://adoptioninstitute.org/research/2011_10_expanding_resources_bestpractices.php.

  101. karmanot says:

    I see yellow journalism after you pee on it.

  102. karmanot says:

    True, it’s just amazing how inept, bad sex warps conservatives .

  103. Skeptical Cicada says:

    What? People like Eastman have been running around for years saying marriage is ONLY for procreation. Have you not been listening? They have said gay marriages are “counterfeit” BECAUSE they are not procreative. It has always included a vicious, implicit attack on infertile straight couples and adoptive families. These folks are constantly saying that a family is mother, father, and their BIOLOGICAL children. Don’t you see? The second they concede that marriage is for adoptive families too, then gay couples, who can adopt in most states, fit the purpose too. Their argument against gay marriage has always required them to put procreation on a pedestal and demean everything else from adoptive families to the love of the spouses.

    Sorry, but you are flat wrong when you try to protect heterosexual adoptive families from Eastman’s condemnation. His degradation of them is crucial to the anti-gay argument that they make: that marriage is for procreation.

  104. dnamj says:

    Ignorance is not always bliss

  105. karmanot says:

    “where does the Pope think gay parents get their adoptive kids from?” Well Duh! Virgin birth and the holy ghost. Everybody knows that!

  106. lucas1235 says:

    No, you’re right that if the parents are unfit, it’s better to have good parents take that job. But the best option is to have good birth parents. I know many adopted people who’ve been raised by good parents, even gay, and they struggle with their identity.

  107. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Congrats on becoming a parent!

  108. masterjace says:

    Here let me fill in the blanks for you since everyone seems to be missing a big part of this story. What was being implied by saying that Justice Roberts adopted Children are second best is nothing more then a thinly vailed attempt to say that Roberts himself is “Gay”. Unable to have heterosexual sex with his wife to procreate they had to resort to adoption to keep the cover going. This is not the first time something like this has been said in this way by the Right, its said in this way to test the waters first. To start planting the seeds of doubt to be used later, when the poison tree starts to produce fruit. Now more stories will be made up, leaked to the press on the Religious Right side. That will go further to keep the implication about his sexuality. Things like why exactly did they adopt? And there marriage will now be on trial before then entire Religious Right. What other secrets is he hiding? Could he be BI? Its all an attempt to make a story out of nothing, or make Robert feel threatened I am sure that he is getting questions by Reporters for the R-Right asking the same questions I just posted. All intended to stir up trauma in his life, so that even if he has nothing to hide they will make it up and smear him with it. The R-Right already has a credibility issue what is one more in there war on us Gays. And its a holly war so god will reward them all for the lies.

    No this is all an atempt to sow the seeds of a poisen tree that will bear the fruits of is Justic Roberts Gay, and is that why he has to adopt kids. Once they loose there case and gay marrige passes and is the law of the land the pooh will hit the fan. I suspect that, that same poisen tree will be used to even claim that Roberts acted in some way improper sice he will be viewed as a closet homosexual and corrupted there case. They will use any and all dirty tricks that they can to win this one. Its all on the line now. Watch and see it the tree grows and sprouts leaves, fruit, or withers and dies in the next year or not. You might be in for a big supprise.

  109. FLL says:

    I’m guessing here, but I think I see what the anti-marriage equality crowd is up to. They think that their best (or only) shot at stopping marriage equality is the argument that two same-sex spouses “can’t reproduce.” This is a leitmotif that I hear over and over again, sometimes to the exclusion of other arguments.

  110. BeccaM says:

    Nicely put.

  111. BeccaM says:

    Indeed. It’s no accident they’re now hanging their anti-marriage equality hat on the asserted superiority of “legitimate” children over all other kinds.

  112. FLL says:

    I think I was typing a similar point in my comment at the top exactly when you were typing your reply.

  113. We are talking about children, who though no fault of their own, are in need of a loving home. The idea that any organization would stand in the way of that happening because of sexual orientation, race or any other reason is obsene. And of all organizations one wouuld expect the church to always have the best interest of the child first and foremost. Sadly, that is not true. I see the welfare of children and their families being affected because of political parties and churches acting like spoiled children. They want things 100% their way and anything less just will not do. I see ads equating gun ownership to abortion. For most women deciding to have an abortion – that is the hardest decision they ever make their entire life – and they never forget making that decision. When, for whatever reason, a child finds itself in the situation of needing a loving home – do they care about the issues discribed here? As a child I was lead to believe the church was a beacon of love for all mankind. Remember the, “Red and yellow, black & white. They are precious in his sight”. Well, not so much. I see the Catholic church closing schools where they are the best hope of a better life – citing losing money on the schools. You have to be kidding. Then the obstruct adoptions. Someone with a loving heart and a bit of common sense needs to start looking at their decisons. They do not look good.

  114. FLL says:

    John Eastman made a generalization about which situation is better when there was no good reason to make such a sweeping generalization. The point that many commenters are missing is why Eastman made that generalization. In other words, what world view informs someone who would make an unfounded generalization like that? The answer is so obvious if you’ve been paying attention to the recent discourse about marriage and adoption. The Religious Right really does have a condescending, even contemptuous attitude toward adoption. They base their arguments on biology, and they regularly claim that biology should determine parenthood. The commenters who are taking issue with this post may not share this narrow-minded attitude, but surely the readers of this blog haven’t been living in a cave. Certainly readers are aware of the Religious Right’s constant statements that a biological mother and a biological father is the end-all and be-all.

  115. The problem is Eastman, like the religious right, and anti-gay bigots, in general seems to have a bias against adoption. He thinks birth parents are per se better, and refuses to look at the specific birth parents and the condition of that marriage, condition of that parenting. It’s absurd to suggest that birth is better than adoption when I would assume that probably all adoptions are better than the original birth situation since, per se, the adoptive parents gave the child up because they couldn’t, or wouldn’t, take care of the child. So the statement is kind of naive and idiotic for the chairman of the #1 religious right group claiming to be the expert on families and parenting.

  116. Ferry_Fey says:

    If I recall correctly, in his 2008 presidential campaign, McCain hired someone who had been part of the movement to smear his daughter to run one of his state organizations (perhaps South Carolina?). Nice daddy.

  117. Actually that’s not even true. The first-best option is the kid being in the most loving home possible. It doesn’t matter if the parents are married, straight, gay, birth parents, adoptive parents, or whatever. Most important is that it be a “good home.” Are you suggesting that a bad birth home is better than a great adoptive home? That’s simply not true.

  118. MARTinNJ says:

    And while we are at it; are you saying that heterosexual marriages that can not produce children (infertile spouses, age of the spouses) should not be allowed to get, or stay married? As my sage, near illiterate, 3-grade educated, but wonderful, Italian grandmother used to say “It doesn’t take any great talent to produce a baby”.

  119. John Roberts and his wife couldn’t produce children either. So what exactly is your point?

  120. Adoption expert disagrees with you:

    More from an adoption expert at the National Adopting Information Clearinghouse on the “second best” problem:

    Adopted children may feel particularly or overly sensitive about the fact that they do not resemble other family members and believe “that their parents have settled for second best,” says Dr. Schechter [Dr. Marshall Schechter, a psychiatrist at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine and a nationally recognized expert on adoption] . “No amount of reassuring can diminish what adopted persons perceive as a stunning difference (between themselves and other family members). They may develop fantasies, both positive and negative, about their birth family, and it often hampers their ability to move on with their lives.”

  121. outside says:

    While In general I agree with this article, as heterosexual a parent with an adopted daughter, I take issue with the statement “parents who saved them”. For the most part, adoptive parts motivation is not about saving children but simply to raise the child. I also hear the idea that we are “sacrificing” or “noble” in some way (especially from my aunts and their generation) when in fact we are simply parents.

  122. MARTinNJ says:

    And you prove what by your point? That two gay individuals can not of their own volution, produce offspring. Doess that mean that they can not love a child or children?. Are 100% of hetrosexual marriages based on love? The heterosexual child abuse rates and divorce rates would prove not. With heterosexual divorce rates at around 50%, heterosexuality, in and of itself, is hardly an argument for a loving marriage, and it is not an argument for a loving marriage that produces an environment with children are loved and carred for. Your argument is based on religious bigotry.

  123. Yeah I don’t think his comment is agreeing with the bad guys, just was written poorly.

  124. FLL says:

    I don’t understand your logic. Biological parents are not necessarily superior to adoptive parents. Sometime yes, sometimes no. It depends on the individual case. Eastman probably made a mistake by generalizing and saying that being raised by biological parents is always the best possible arrangement and being raised by adoptive parents is the second best arrangement. I think most people really would question that generalization. It varies, so it’s a mistake to generalize.

  125. Skeptical Cicada says:

    I’d be offended if I were you, but I understand what he said. What he just said is that your family is inferior because you didn’t give birth to your child. They’ve been saying this stuff for years because their central argument against gay marriage is that marriage is only for procreation. They’ve been demeaning infertile couples and adoptive families this way for years. If marriage is also for adoptive families, then it is for gay adoptive families too, and the argument against gay marriage collapses.

  126. clarknt67 says:

    “a married couple having a Child / Children is better than adopting”

    That is a bigoted and ignorant statement entirely on its own merits. How is the choice to have a biological child “better” than the choice to adopt one?

    “Better” in what way? Adopted children are sons and daughters, just the same and no differently than biological children. It’s very offensive to even suggest otherwise.

  127. Well, the doctor who’s a national expert on adoption says flat-out out that the “second best” argument harms kids. Not to mention, you think a kid staying with an abusive hetero married couple is the first-best option over adoption? Or staying with a crack-addicted sex working mom is better than being adopted? Really? I think his point was idiotic on its face. Kids don’t get adopted for fun. It’s not like they leave perfect homes and throw themselves on the adoption market because they’re “bored” with the perfect first-best mom and dad. The first-best option was actually the worst option for these kids.

  128. Bob Loblaw says:

    During the 2000 South Carolina primary there were push polls that implied McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock. The McCains have an adopted daughter from Bangladesh who is dark-skinned. No group claimed responsibility for the polls, but many people speculate Karl Rove was involved.

  129. You mean his point was that being raised by a crack-addicted sex worker, for example, would have been better than someone’s adopted mom?

    Usually if someone is putting a kid up for adoption that per se means that the first option, keeping the kid with mom and/or dad, is the worst option.

  130. mstaggerlee says:

    I have to say that, although there is probably precious little that Mr. Eastman and I would find anything close to agreement on, I think the premise of this article is WAY off base. My brother is adopted, and we’ve never looked upon him as a “second-best” child, and I’m SURE didn’t consider us a “second-best” family, but that’s NOT what I think Mr. Eastmen meant. The message he was trying to get across (pretty poorly, I must say) is that if you can’t be raised by your own, natural, mother AND father (in his view, the “best” arrangement … any disagreement so far?), then the NEXT best arrangement you could hope for (again, in his opinion) is to be adopted by a hetero couple. I do not think that he meant to disparage adopted families in any way. Now, to be sure, I don’t see why being adopted by a hetero couple would necessarily be any “better” than being adopted by an equally-loving Gay couple, but to each his own, and that’s NOT the point.

    Let’s put it THIS way – Eastman’s ONLY intention was to put down Gays – NOT adopted parents. Not to say that this is any less heinous, but if we’re gonna pick on the guy, let’s at least do it for the RIGHT reason!

  131. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Warning: Paul Cigna is here shilling for NOM, repeating this “yellow journalism” line and trying to rewrite the comment. Their whole argument against gay marriage centers on defining “family” as one father, one mother, and the BIOLOGICAL children that the father and mother create through procreation. These anti-gay advocates have been demeaning infertile straight couples and adoptive families for years. It’s about time it came back to bite them.

  132. MARTinNJ says:

    Why on earth are you devulging the Gay Agenda? From the MyBigGayAgenda: Item 6: Pick up laundry; Item 7: Destroy Straight Marriage; Item 8: Eat Dinner, Item 9: Watch Modern Family; Item 10: Go to Sleep.

  133. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Right. Their view over the years has been that being raised by biological parents is inherently superior to being raised by adoptive parents–i.e. that adoptive families are inferior.

  134. Skeptical Cicada says:

    Nice try, but that is not what he meant. These bigots’ central argument against gay marriage is that marriage is for procreation. Since gay couples can adopt children just as well as straight couples can, these bigots are forced to say that adoptive families are inferior and that marriage isn’t designed for them. They degrade adoptive families as inferior to avoid conceding that marriage is appropriate for adoptive families, which would include gay couples.

    So instead of screeching “Yellow Journalism” because you don’t even understand the issue, try educating yourself before shooting your mouth off.

  135. Meanwhile, in two weeks, NOM has to argue its case before the very judge it just grievously insulted. Where did these guys learn their strategy from, the backs of KIX boxes?

  136. FLL says:

    John Eastman’s comment strikes me as that of someone who has given up hope of victory (in the Supreme Court cases) and who is resorting to petty insult in defeat. Maybe a year ago, the folks at NOM knew that Justice Kennedy’s vote was out of reach because of his history of supporting civil rights, e.g., Romer v. Evans and Bowers v. Hardwick. But NOM still held out hope for a 5-4 victory by securing Roberts’ vote. The have apparently come to the conclusion that Chief Justice Roberts (who is still comparatively young) would sooner chew ground glass than preside over a bigoted Court decision, only to die of embarrassment a few years later and see it overturned (with Roberts still alive as chief justice). Now that NOM sees certain defeat looming, their only comfort is to insult Roberts and his family. Petty, but typical.
    I look forward to celebrating a lobster dinner, similar to the one Roberts had with his buds when he was attending Harvard (photo below). Now if I were to play Sherlock Holmes, what observations could I make?

    (1) These three guys who are eating at a restaurant are having dinner, not breakfast or lunch, because people almost never have a whole lobster other than at dinner, hence the phrase “lobster dinner.”

    (2) This is definitely a boys’ night out—just the three of them. Three guys are not going to take a group picture of the dinner by first telling their three female dates to get out of the picture.

    (3) All three guys are dressed adequately well… except for John Roberts. He isn’t just dressed adequately well. He’s going well out of his way to look as hot as he possibly can. He’s really trying… trying hard… as though he’s trying to impress someone.

    I’ll take off my Sherlock Holmes hat now and just say that I anticipate celebrating a lobster dinner this June.

  137. Ooooh, oooh, oooh! I know the answer to that one! (Too bad NOM and the RCC don’t.)

  138. Skeptical Cicada says:

    No, you don’t fully understand. This has been their ideology for years. They want gay marriage banned, so they have attacked gay couples as inferior because they can’t procreate. The problem, however, is that lots of straight couples can’t procreate either. The whole marriage-is-for-procreation line has been implicitly demeaning infertile straight couples and adoptive families for years. If they concede that adoption is equal to procreation, they lose their argument against gay marriage, because gay couples can adopt just as well as straight couples.

  139. Got link? I don’t doubt you, but I don’t quite remember that, and that’s sufficiently evil that I think I would have remembered it — unless of course it was quickly buried by the Traditional Media which was heavily plumping for Bush.

  140. deckercat says:

    i only have two words for these guys. they won’t let me say them.

  141. Oh, that’s how they’ll try to spin it. But as JA says in the blog post, NOM and other anti-marriage-equality outfits have long hinted that they view adoption as a second-best situation. So this is truly what they feel.