Supportive Voices

He's not my type at all, but I'd consider giving him some after this quote:

"...A year ago or two years ago, I remember reading about an initiative that was proposed in the state of Arkansas. It was some kind of measure that was aimed at preventing adoptions by single parents. Now, the way I read that and the way that I translated that language was that only heterosexual, married couples could adopt children. As an adopted child that really bothered me. I asked myself, what that is really saying is that the concern with one's sexual orientation or one's sexual preference outweighs what's really important, and that's finding safe homes for children, for our children. It's also saying that we'd rather have kids bounce around from foster home to foster home throughout the course of their childhood, than end up in a permanent home, where the parent, whether that person's single or not, gay or straight. Either way, it doesn't matter. It's a home that's going to be provided for a kid who desperately needs a home. As an adopted child, that measure really bothered me. It just boggles my mind because good, loving homes for any child are the most important thing."

This from Scott Fujita, the straight, married, father that just happens to be a line backer for the New Orleans Saints. That's a professional football team for all my queer brethren out there.

All I can say is that I completely agree, Scott.

Adoption Rant

I'm just the tiniest bit over the "faith-based" communities arguing that LGBT rights legislation should not be enacted because the organizations would then be forced to do things that go against their beliefs. Correction: I'm way over it.

We as people will never, ever always agree with the law. However, the law is there to protect the people, not grant certain groups the ability to legally discriminate. There are "faith-based" organizations that complain that gay rights legislation would force them to aid gay couples to adopt. And they are right, most legislation would do just that. Why? Because these organizations receive state funding, and under state regulations, you can not use your chosen religious beliefs to deny others services and rights.

If those organizations would prefer not to work with "the gays," then I'm sure the nation would gladly accept their funding back to help pay off the debt Bush has accrued financing religious fundamentalism here in the States and abroad.

Yes, rights laws would mean that legalized discrimination would be a thing of the past. It would mean that hundreds, if not thousands, of children would have a safe, warm and loving place to sleep every night and adults to actually love them and care for them instead of paid workers that just want their shift to be over. It would mean that the world would be just a bit of a better place, and more human beings would be offered chances they would not have otherwise.

As much as marriage rights mean to me, I have to say that I believe adoption rights are at least on par with them. There are simply too many children without healthy, happy homes. I would like for every one of the supposed Christian adoption agencies to turn to the children they are suppose to help, look them in the eye and tell that child they will go yet another night without the safety of a home and without the love of a family because the Christians have decided that a particular couple is unworthy just because they are gay.

The difference between marriage and adoption rights comes down to the difference between my happiness and a child's happiness. I can suffer and I'll be OK, but I'll be damned if I watch another child suffer because of someone else's bigotry.

Inspiration