If same-sex marriage is legalized nationwide as part of the monumental case before the Supreme Court — a decision is expected this month — it would become possible for more same-sex married couples to establish legal ties with their children.No, this has nothing to do with legal ties with their children.
They already have legal ties to their kids. The issue here is creating legal ties to kids who are not their kids.
The article tells about some Ohio white lesbians who have taken in black foster kids, but only one of the lesbians has been able to legally adopt them.
They live in Ohio because Jessica’s job as an air traffic controller is there. So Melissa, who stays home to care for the children, must carry around a permission slip of sorts when she takes them to the doctor or other appointments. “I am with them all day every day,” Melissa said. “I take care of their day-to-day needs, and I have no rights to them legally. It’s hurtful.”The article tries to make it sound like a special hardship, but there are millions of step-parents in a similar situation. That is, when a parent divorces and remarries, the new spouse has no legal rights to the kid, and may have to get one of the real parents to sign a permission slip.
The LGBTQIA crowd will not be happy with this, until they completely destroy how marriage, divorce, and adoption work for straight couples.
Legalizing same-sex marriage will not eliminate the potential for discrimination over parental rights in every corner of the country, particularly in places already working on legislation that would undermine a pro-marriage ruling. Michigan just passed a law that would allow state-funded child welfare agencies to deny services to people — including same-sex couples who want to provide foster care or adopt — based on religious grounds. Virginia and North Dakota already have similar religious exemption laws, according to the Movement Advancement Project, and Alabama and Texas have proposed them.So the "Movement Advancement Project" wants to force religions to place kids for adoption into lesbian households?
On another matter, the Obama administration has caved into demands to put a woman on our paper money:
Growing numbers of Americans are going cashless, but demands to finally put a woman on paper currency persist. And now the Treasury has announced that a portrait of a woman, to be determined soon, will grace the $10 bill. ...Obviously, people do not want these women polluting our money. How long before they put LGBTQIA folks on our money, or maybe a trans-racialist or trans-ablist? They should be putting Ronald Reagan on our money, not these obscure women.
Susan B. Anthony, the social reformer, appeared on silver dollars minted from 1979 to 1981, and again in 1999, and Sacagawea, the Shoshone guide to the Lewis and Clark expedition, was featured on gold-colored dollar coins from 2000. Both coins, which were often confused with quarters, proved unpopular, and production of them was stopped.
2 comments:
Considering how much the national debt increased under Reagan
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
he is highly responsible for how little our money is worth. We should make the notes smaller, like Monopoly money, and put his picture on them.
The debt was created by Democrats who controlled the House of Representatives in those years.
We have FDR on our dimes, and he was the biggest borrower, except for the Obama Democrats.
Post a Comment