Texas bans gay foster parents The Texas House of Representatives passed a bill banning homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals from being foster parents. If the bill gains approval from the Texas Senate, the state will be allowed to investigate the backgrounds of current foster parents and remove children living in non-heterosexual households. All future foster parents will be required to disclose their sexual preference on an application form, a legislative aide said. The move was denounced by local activists. "More than 43,000 gay and lesbian couples in Texas are forming families and raising children, and this attack on LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered) Texans will tear apart our families and remove our children from loving, stable families," the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas said in a statement. "In an already over-burdened foster care system, the effect of reducing the pool of foster parents does nothing to protect Texas children," it added. http://beta.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050420/ts_alt_afp/usjusticegays_050420173703 ------------------------------------------------ Do you agree or disagree... why?
Pretty appalling. Not surprising though. That last statement from the LGRL covers part of it pretty well. There are already too few willing foster parents out there. And of course there's the discriminatory aspect as well. I'd say more, but frankly it is really just so depressing.
As much as I like an underdog in an argument, I can't get behind the House on this one. Just a dumb and discriminatory idea.
I'm about as conservative as they come, but come on...that's just stupid. Like we have an abundance of foster families already...let's trim out a few more.
Let's take children away from their families! Brilliant thinking, Texas legislators! I wanted to send a scathing e-mail to my rep (who voted for this), but her page on the House site doesn't have an e-mail link
hell, let's do one better and smoke em out of their holes, let's abort gay fetuses, but make it illegal to abort straight ones.
I think gay couples would make perfect foster parents for opposite sex kids because there would be almost zero chance of sexual misconduct. You hear too many horror stories (and they could be just that) of some lecherous guy molesting his foster daughter. I don't see any reason why a gay couple would be any LESS able to care for foster children then a straight couple (excepting dealing with a couple of gender specific problems, though single parents run into the same difficulty).
but would the gay parent be able to teach his son to throw a football like john elway? would a lesbian parent be able to teach their daughters to be like paris hilton? i think not!!
but connecticut approves civil unions: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...20050421/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_civil_unions -- Connecticut Approves Same-Sex Civil Unions Thu Apr 21 By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer HARTFORD, Conn. - Gay rights proponents had been hoping that Connecticut would follow the lead of neighboring Massachusetts by allowing same-sex couples to marry. That's why they were pleased but still unsatisfied Wednesday when Connecticut offered civil unions to gay couples, becoming the first state to do so voluntarily, without being forced by the courts. "As important as the rights are, this is not yet equality," said Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, a statewide gay rights organization. Vermont is the other state to allow civil unions, which carry the rights and privileges of marriage without the marriage license. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. But those changes came about after same-sex couples won court battles. Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed the bill about an hour after it was approved 26-8 by the Democrat-controlled Senate. The law, which takes effect Oct. 1, includes an amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Civil unions are reserved only for same-sex couples. "I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind and I think that this bill accomplishes that, while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Rell said. According to the 2000 census, there are 7,400 same-sex couples in Connecticut. Jeffrey Busch, who lives in Wilton, said he would likely take advantage of the law and engage in a civil union with his partner, Stephen Davis. "But we're not going to celebrate a civil union like a marriage," said Busch, an administrative law judge in New York. "If it had everything a marriage has, it would be called a marriage." Busch and Davis are one of seven same-sex couples who sued in Connecticut last summer after being denied marriage licenses; the case has not been resolved. Some gay marriage proponents say the new law means they will have to wait awhile before asking the state Legislature to revisit the issue and consider gay marriage. "I think we are all going to have to step back and take a deep breath and realize that we need to understand the world is not going to change as the result of this legislation," said Democratic Sen. Andrew McDonald, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of a handful of openly gay legislators. "We'll have an opportunity to see how it unfolds as unions start in October of this year," said McDonald, who supports Connecticut opening its marriage laws to same-sex couples. Opponents had hoped to persuade Rell to veto the bill, saying civil unions are essentially gay marriage. Roman Catholics and pro-marriage activists plan a rally Sunday in opposition to the bill. Marie Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the civil union proposal "got more legs than we ever hoped it would get." About 44 percent of the state's 3 million residents are Roman Catholic. Brian Brown, head of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said his group intends to keep the issue squarely before the public. "From now until 2006, our mission will be to let every person know in the state of Connecticut which lawmakers voted to redefine marriage, and which lawmakers voted to protect marriage," he said.
But lets not kid ourselves. Gay people have to deal with issues that non gay people don't. If you have a choice, you give the kid more stability since they already have enough to deal with. You can't send a kid into an indian village for example. You have to give them the best road possible. Gay people present more issues that need to be dealt with than non gay parents. I think most gay children would acknowledge that the road is not an easy one. If you don't think that's true, I think you are kidding yourselves. Obviously, they are good parents. No better or worse, but they have more obstacles thrown in front of them. The legislation being a prime example.
everybody has issues, gay parents just have a different set. it's no different from the issues faced by parents of adopted children or IVF kids. stigmatizing gay parents in this fashion does nothing to help at risk kids and is nothing but political grandstanding on the part of the texas legislator, playing to the lowest gay-baiting denominator. it's an attempt to equate homosexuality w/ pedophilia, which is complete bull****.
