Trump Lauds "Christian" Adoption Agencies for Refusing Same Sex Couples

While the Human Rights Campaign ("HRC") and Equality Virginia ("EV") have foolishly injected themselves into the current chaos of Virginia politics, Donald Trump reminded everyone not overcome with political correctness of where these organizations ought to be focusing their efforts.  Speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning, Trump openly endorsed anti-LGBT discrimination by foster and adoption agencies receiving tax payer funds.  This sort of bigotry ought to be a reminder that 29 states still have no employment non-discrimination protections despite many years of HRC and EV shaking down supporters for money both organizations have failed to deliver on these basic legal protections. Now, in Virginia they have attacked one of their strongest allies. In my view, major changes in their leadership is needed.  But back to Trump and his lauding of bigotry.  Here are highlights from Think Progress:

Donald Trump openly endorsed discrimination by foster and adoption agencies, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning.

After welcoming Chad and Melissa Buck, a couple from Michigan who he applauded for having adopted five children, he said, “Unfortunately, the Michigan adoption charity that brought the Buck family together is now defending itself in court for living by the values of its Catholic faith.”

“We will always protect our country’s long and proud tradition of faith-based adoption,” he added. “My administration is working to insure that faith-based adoption agencies are able to help vulnerable children find their forever families while following their deeply held beliefs.”

The case Trump referred to is a lawsuit the ACLU brought on behalf of two same-sex couples challenging Michigan’s law granting adoption agencies a license to discriminate, even if they receive state funding.

One of the couples behind the suit, Kristy and Dana Dumont, sought adoption services from St. Vincent Catholic Charities in July 2016 and again in March 2017. The agency told them it did not work with same-sex couples.

During a February 2015 Michigan House hearing on legislation that would protect adoption agencies from being punished for discriminating, St. Vincent’s director of clinical services defended the bill, testifying that the agency would be affected otherwise, as it employed such discriminatory practices. “If they let us know that they’re unmarried, or they’re gay or lesbian, we immediately recommend, make a referral to another agency,” they said.

But the ACLU didn’t sue St. Vincent or any other particular agency that was taking advantage of the law. It sued state officials directly, seeking to overturn the law altogether. The agency, along with the Bucks, chose to intervene in the case to help defend the discriminatory law for which it had previously advocated. If the same-sex couples’ case succeeded, the agency claimed, it would be forced to shut down.

Trump’s assurances at Thursday’s prayer breakfast come weeks after his administration granted a waiver to a South Carolina foster care agency, granting them license to ignore an Obama administration rule prohibiting discrimination. Miracle Hill, an evangelical protestant agency, not only refuses to serve same-sex families but had also refused to place children with a Jewish family.

Anti-LGBTQ groups have prioritized passing more of these laws allowing child placement agencies to discriminate across the country while still receiving public funding in recent years. An effort to chip away at marriage equality, these campaigns demonize same-sex parents, provide special privileges to Christian agencies, and normalize subsidizing discrimination with taxpayer money.

Hate Groups Launch Deceptive Campaign Targeting Gay Parents

As numerous posts have noted, evangelical Christians and hate groups that they sponsor believe that they should be exempt from compliance with non-discrimination laws.  Stated another way, they deem themselves above the laws that bind all other citizens. They believe that their beliefs - all based on Bronze Age myths and legends - put them above the law.   Nowhere is this phenomenon more true than in the context of their relentless campaign against LGBT citizens and the demand that their organizations be either (i) directly funded by grants of taxpayer funds, or (ii) indirectly funded by all citizens through grants of tax exempt status.  Thus, here in Virginia and elsewhere, Christofascist adoption agencies want to receive outright state funding yet be free to discriminate against selective taxpayers.  Worse yet, their disingenuously claim that children will be harmed if they are required to comply with non-discrimination laws.  A piece in LGBTQ Nation looks at a new insidious campaign to fool the public in order to all hate groups to receive taxpayer funding.  Here are excerpts: 

Anti-LGBTQ and conservative groups seem to be stepping up efforts to undermine gay adoption and gay families via a website pushing a deceptive campaign.

Groups such as the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Alliance Defending Freedom [the FRC and ADF are certified hate groups], and a few others have been steadily making the case that faith-based foster care and adoption agencies which refuse to work with gay couples should still receive tax dollars. A few states, such Oklahoma and Kansas, have passed legislation saying so.

Other municipalities, such as Philadelphia, however have made it clear that tax dollars shouldn’t go to entities which discriminate for any reason. And Philadelphia won in court on that premise.

Now a website sponsored by the groups makes the case for tax dollars going to discriminatory agencies. The website and hashtag #keepkidsfirst claims that children will suffer if faith-based adoption and foster care agencies are made to follow civil rights laws.

The website is built on the dishonest premise that some people, particularly the LGBTQ community, are attempting to shut down faith-based adoption and foster care agencies. In reality, the central argument is simple – if these agencies want to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, they shouldn’t be allowed to do so while receiving tax dollars.

By keeping the plight of children needing adoption in the forefront, the sponsors of the website hope to draw attention away from its darker aspects – undermining adoption laws and the dignity of LGBTQ taxpayers.

They are attempting to force an unfair choice on the LGBTQ community. Do we choose our dignity as taxpayers over children or children over our dignity as taxpayers?
It’s an unfair choice. In fact, it shouldn’t even be a choice put upon the heads of the LGBTQ community.

It has been proven time and time again that same-sex households are wonderful places to raise children and we make great parents.  If religious foster care and adoption agencies choose to ignore this, that is their right.

What they are doing is wrong because for all of their bluster about providing children with good homes, they are deliberately ignoring good homes. And the LGBTQ community shouldn’t be forced to surrender our hard earned tax dollars to promote their prejudices.

Furthermore, it is extremely sleazy that groups like the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, and the Alliance Defending Freedom are again exploiting children as shields to make their homophobia seem more palpable.

When one takes into account their extensive history of pushing anti-LGBTQ laws, promoting anti-LGBTQ prejudices, and generally making life hell for the LGBTQ community, their so-called concern about children is merely a smokescreen for more of their bigotry.

Personally, I would end all direct state funding to such groups and go further and end tax-exempt status for all churches and religious organization. 

Illinois Seeking LGBT Couples to Adopt/Foster Homeless LGBT Youth

LGBT youth continue to make up a hugely disproportionate percentage of the homeless youth population, not because their parents cannot take care of them, but rather because these parents (who typically are the part of the "godly Christian" crowd) have discarded them as if they were trash simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In short, these parents use their religious belief to justify what amounts to nothing less than child abuse and, in my view, states ought to start prosecuting such parents and/or forcing them to contribute to the support of their children.  Meanwhile, in Illinois, state agencies are seeking to identify LGBT individuals and couples to either adopt or serve as foster parents for LGBT youths who have been thrown away by their parents.   Here are some highlights from Gay Star News:

Fostering and adoption agencies in Illinois are looking to increase the number of same-sex parents on their books, in order to help young people disowned by their families because of their sexual orientation. According to Renee Lehocky, director of strategic initiatives at social services organization Lawrence Hall, around 50% of homeless LGBTI teenagers have come into contact with the Department of Children and Family Services. In the hopes of better meeting their needs, Illinois agencies are now partnering to increase the pool of LGBTI parents who would like to foster or adopt. Susan Stoga, board member for non-profit fostering and adoption education initiative Let It Be Us, told Chicago local press: ‘Usually, when you think about a child or a teen entering foster care, there is a set of circumstances you think about, like mom and dad cannot take care of them or they were removed. ‘With a lot of teens in the LGBTQ community, it’s because their parents don’t want to support who they’ve become, and that is heart-breaking.’

An outreach event at the University of Illinois in Chicago today aims to recruit more LGBTI parents to fostering and adoption, with further outreach programs planned. As Debbie Saucedo, senior director of operations at the Illinois Center for Adoption and Permanency, told the Windy City Times, ‘[LGBTI parents] are able to expose children to a diverse world and [are] able to accept those differences. ‘Also, when they adopt the decision is extremely intentional, and they tend to have more resources and more support systems.’ Lehocky added that the LGBTI community had been a largely untapped resource and that today’s targeted outreach event represented a first for many adoption and foster agencies.

While LGBTI parents may be a largely untapped resource, Saucedo revealed her agency had seen a 22% increase in same-sex couples adopting within the last year, which she hailed as ‘a great improvement’. 

If you want to witness true "Christian" behavior, don't look for it among the "godly folk" who are today's version of the Pharisees of the New Testament.  I openly admit that I hold these people in utter contempt and view them as a toxic evil that poison the world. 

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Reverses Alabama’s Anti-Gay Adoption Ruling

As if members of the LGBT community needed any more proof of how important it is that an anti-gay Republican NOT be elected to the White House in November, yesterday, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed an Alabama Supreme Court decision refusing to recognize a lesbian mother’s prior adoption of her three children. As a result of the ruling, the adoptive mother's rights to the children were restored.  The sad truth is that in a majority of states LGBT individuals and same sex couples continue to face bigotry and discrimination - always at the hands of god professing Christians and their political whores - with the federal courts being the only ultimate source of protection.  A press release from the Center for Lesbian Rights looks at this very important ruling.  Here are highlights:

(Washington, DC, March 7, 2016)—Today, the United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed an Alabama Supreme Court decision refusing to recognize a lesbian mother’s prior adoption of her three children in Georgia. Today’s summary reversal restores V.L. full rights as an adoptive parent.

“I am overjoyed that the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Alabama court decision,” said the adoptive mother, V.L. “I have been my children’s mother in every way for their whole lives. I thought that adopting them meant that we would be able to be together always. When the Alabama court said my adoption was invalid and I wasn’t their mother, I didn’t think I could go on. The Supreme Court has done what’s right for my family.”

“The Supreme Court’s reversal of Alabama’s unprecedented decision to void an adoption from another state is a victory not only for our client but for thousands of adopted families,” said National Center for Lesbian Rights Family Law Director Cathy Sakimura, who is representing V.L. “No adoptive parent or child should have to face the uncertainty and loss of being separated years after their adoption just because another state’s court disagrees with the law that was applied in their adoption.”

V.L and E.L. were in a long-term same-sex relationship in which they planned for and raised three children together, using donor insemination. To ensure that both had secure parental rights, V.L., the non-biological mother, adopted the couples’ three children in Georgia in 2007, with E.L.’s support and written consent. When the two later broke up, E.L. kept V.L. from seeing the children, fighting her request for visitation, and arguing that the Georgia adoption was invalid in Alabama, where they live.

In September 2015, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an order refusing to recognize V.L.’s Georgia adoption and declaring that it is “void.” 

Before this ruling, no state supreme court had refused to recognize a same-sex parent’s adoption from another state—or any out-of-state adoption—based on a disagreement with how the court issuing the adoption interpreted its own adoption laws. Under the United States Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, states are required to respect court judgments, including adoption orders, issued by courts in other states. V.L.’s request said “this Court’s review of the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision is urgently needed” because “the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision flouts a century of precedent on the Full Faith and Credit Clause and will have a devastating impact on Alabama adoptive families.”

In December 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Alabama court’s decision, allowing V.L. to have visitation with her children while the Court considered her case.

Italy's Senate Approves Same-Sex Civil Unions

In another major defeat for the Roman Catholic Church, the Italian Senate passed a a bill that would put in place civil unions for same sex couples.  While gay adoption provisions were stripped out of the final bill, much to the dissatisfaction of LGBT advocate, the bill does bring Italy finally in line with other developed western nations.  True, it is not marriage equality, but it is progress and a huge defeat for the Catholic Church.  Here are highlights from The Advocate:

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's political gamble paid off today, with his nation's senate voting overwhelmingly to approve a bill to legalize non-religious civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. After being held up for weeks in the country's upper house of parliament due to heated controversy over a provision that would allow for one partner to adopt the biological child of the other, the bill will now head to the lower house—stripped of the adoption clause—where its passage is expected to be easy.

Renzi has made it a personal mission to bring his country into alignment with the rest of Western Europe—Italy is the only major country without any legal recognition or protections for same-sex couples, let alone marriage equality. In an attempt to force the bill's passage, he called a confidence vote in his leadership and his legislative agenda today. Had the motion failed, he would have been forced to resign. The vote was successful, passing by a margin of 173:71, an outcome that Renzi has hailed as "historic." 

Gay rights activists, however, have described the bill as a betrayal, according to the BBC. Renzi had long insisted that the provision for gay adoption remain included. His unwillingness to back down on the issue is why the bill stalled in the senate for so long. However, after Italy's highest court refused yesterday to recognize a gay partner adoption performed in the United States, Renzi decided to move ahead with a version of the motion stripped of the controversial adoption provision. 

Flavio Romani, president of the LGBT rights group Arcigay, told Reuters:

"This text once again does not take into consideration children who need definite laws and protection. The law that has come out of all this is lacking its heart."

The "Religious Liberty" Myth of Anti-LGBT Bills Is Fading

Across the country self-prostituting Republicans are introducing and supporting bills that purport yo protect "religious freedom" when in fact they are pushing special rights for Christofascists citizens that would allow these foul elements of society to ignore non-discrimination laws that apply to other Americans. One such bill has passed the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates and will be killed only by the veto of Governor McAuliffe.  Similar bills are advancing in Georgia, West Virginia and other states.  Meanwhile, a majority of Americans oppose such laws and support non-discrimination protections for LGBT individuals.  A piece in Think Progress looks at the growing recognition that such laws are a ruse and that they grant special rights to the few and grant special rights to members of the American Taliban.  Here are excerpts:

It has become common practice for conservatives to defend legislation that enables anti-LGBT discrimination as supporting the cause of “religious liberty.” Considering most religious people actually support protections for LGBT people, this framing is misleading, and as several current state legislative fights demonstrate, unconvincing as well.

This week, for example, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 56-41 to pass something called the Government Nondiscrimination Act (HB 773), which is essentially a state version of the First Amendment Defense Act proposed in Congress. The bill claims to offer “protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions,” but it actually exclusively protects anti-LGBT beliefs.The bill states that the government can not alter the tax status or deny any grant or contract if an individual or organization holds one of the following “sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions”:

• that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman,
• that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage,
• that the male sex and the term “man” and the female sex and the term “woman” refer to an individual’s biological sex as determined at birth.

The bill would give special privileges to people who don’t wish to give any recognition to same-sex marriages, transgender people, or anybody who has any sex out of marriage, requiring the state government to continue subsidizing any person or organization that discriminates as such. It doesn’t protect “religious liberty” across the board — only for those inclined against LGBT people.

Georgia lawmakers are considering a similar pair of bills, among others. SB 284 doesn’t include Virginia’s anti-transgender provision, but does similarly offer exclusive protection to those with “a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such marriage.”

“Religious liberty” has also apparently become an urgent concern in Nebraska. Lawmakers there are considering LB 975, the Child Welfare Services Preservation Act. “In order to preserve the support that child-placing agencies offer children and families,” the bill states, “the government should not take adverse action against child-placing agencies based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Like other states’ legislation, the Nebraska bill would prevent the government from taking any “adverse action” — such as cutting funding or denying a license — against an adoption agency that refuses to serve families in ways that violate its “sincerely held religious beliefs.”

But why now? . . . Now, those organizations stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in state and federal funding if they use their religious beliefs to limit what kinds of families they’re willing to consider as caregivers for the state’s children.

Though their proponents have made it clear that LGBT people are the target of these bills, there are others who could also get caught in the crossfire:

• Virginia’s legislation could allow for discrimination against an unmarried pregnant woman, because an organization might believe she shouldn’t have had sex outside of marriage.
• Georgia’s bill would also allow businesses to refuse service to religious groups; Rabbi Joshua Lesser of Congregation Bet Haverim in Atlanta worries that an HVAC contractor would refuse to fix their air conditioning on a hot day.
• Nebraska’s bill might allow a child-placement agency to refuse to place a child with a biological relative if that relative doesn’t share the agency’s religious beliefs.

Indeed, the latest “religious liberty” bills upend actual religious freedoms by privileging one set of beliefs over others. 

These laws are an abomination.  Worse yet, they are a first step towards the ugly extremism that has been a hallmark of Christianity through the centuries and is on display through ISIS in the Middle East.  The civil laws must always trump  the hate and bigotry that seems to be inseparable from religion.

Story on Virginia Republican Caught on Grindr Goes Viral

The other day this blog noted a story at GayRVA about an anti-gay Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates who was caught using his Grindr account in Richmond to look for hookups while snowed in during the recent snow storm.   Since then, the story has gone viral and has been picked up by LGBT blogs around the country and has ignited yet another running debate of the propriety of "outing" closeted anti-gay politicians.  Some have criticized GayRVA for failing to reveal the identity of the legislator.  While I understand the concerns that lead to the decision to not reveal the individual's identity, I would likely have "outed" him after a little more investigation.  A piece in Metro Weekly looks at the debate and information that seemingly narrows down who this hypocrite is.  Here are highlights:

The Grindr-cruising lawmaker has voted:

• In favor of a “conscience clause” exemption allowing adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.
• In favor of allowing on-campus university clubs and groups to discriminate against LGBT individuals for the purposes of membership.
• Against an amendment that would have prohibited anti-LGBT discrimination in state employment.
• Against the nomination of Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland, Virginia’s first openly gay judge, to the Richmond General District Court.

[O]nline commenters have noted that the clues provided by Kutner essentially come close to revealing the lawmaker’s identity — for instance, while many Republicans voted against Thorne-Begland’s nomination for a judgeship when he was first nominated in 2012, only four currently-serving Republican lawmakers from Southwest Virginia were in the legislature and voted against Thorne-Begland’s subsequently successful nomination in 2013.

In an interview with Metro Weekly, Kutner said he’s received several requests from readers interested in learning the man’s identity.

“A Grindr conversation alone is debatable evidence,” Kutner says. “That certainly played a role into whether or not I wanted to out somebody, without really confirming things.

Kutner hopes the lawmaker will use this incident to think carefully the next time he’s faced with an LGBT-related piece of legislation, such as restricting the bathroom use of transgender students in school or granting county court clerks an exemption to refuse to issue marriage licenses.

But for those who insist that Kutner has a duty to “out” the closeted gay lawmaker, he says they’re missing the larger point: that the atmosphere in Virginia is so toxic that a person in a position of power feels the need to stay in the closet. 

“I’m not surprised to see people go on this witch-hunt, but outing this person is not going to make it illegal to fire gay people, it’s not going to remove the anti-gay animus. Honestly, it’s only going to make things more combative. . . . . we are flipping out to find out who’s gay — which is the same thing they’re doing,” he says. “Can you imagine Victoria Cobb right now, figuring out who she can out and try and ruin? It’s scary and weird. I’m not surprised by the reaction, but I would definitely like to see this energy shifted to a bit more of a positive place.”

Again, I understand the reasoning, but I would not have been so kind to this scum bag.   Dan Savage and I are on the same page in terms of the appropriateness of outing such politicians.  Here are excerpts from The Stranger:

I disagree: this legislator's votes against workplace protections for LGBT people, adoption rights for same-sex couples, and the judicial appointment of a qualified out gay man speak loudly of his hypocrisy and the the particular kind of damage done when closeted conservatives abuse their political power to protect their closets. We've heard this song about a thousand times before...

Just another closeted conservative asshole throwing other LGBT people under the bus—attacking other LGBT people with his votes—to deflect attention away from his own sexuality. He figures that no one will suspect him of being gay so long as he maintains a perfect anti-gay voting record—that more than qualifies this asshole for an outing. Here's hoping Internet sleuths are already on the case; there's more than enough detail in Kutner's open letter (and those Grindr pics) to identify this guy, if only through process of elimination. Get on it, Internet.

But, hey, even if the Internet sleuths fail us... this guy may wind up outing himself in the end. "[We’re] choosing to leave [him] anonymous," the say the editors at GAYRVA, "however we hope this message reaches [his] desk and [he'll] consider the words below if and when [he] have a chance to vote on LGBTQ related bills in the future."

If he casts another anti-LGBT vote, GAYRVA will out him. But if he pulls a 180 and suddenly starts casting pro-LGBT votes, he'll be outing himself. Checkmate either way.

And yes, I WILL be working to confirm the individual's identity. 

Florida Republican Files Hideous "Religious Freedom" Bill

Anti-gay bigot Julio Gonzalez

Gay marriage is the law of the land, science is increasingly confirm that sexual orientation is fixed at birth and not a "choice", and rational members of society are moving on and accepting gay couples as a normal part of life as evidenced by local yacht and country clubs that are accepting gay couples as member. But in the Republican alternate universe where policies and legislation is based on a race back to the worst aspects of the 1950's, gay bashing and special rights for far right white Christofascists is the highest priority.  A case in point?  A heinous bill introduced in the Florida legislature aimed at granting the right to anti-gay discrimination to adoption agencies, health care institutions and many other businesses.  Towleroad looks at the batshitery.  Here are highlights:

A Republican lawmaker in Florida has introduced a hideous “religious freedom” bill that would empower adoption agencies and certain businesses in the Sunshine State to turn away LGBT couples for ‘religious or moral reasons.’

The bill is modeled on similar “religious freedom” bills that were introduced to disastrous consequences in Indiana and Arkansas.

State Rep. Julio Gonzalez filed the bill, HB 401, in response to what he views as the erosion of religious liberty caused by the advancement of LGBT rights.

Via heraldtribune.com:

“There have been various situations where there are increasing possibilities of subsections of society having their religious freedoms encroached on,” Gonzalez said. “Over time it became obvious to me we need to adopt some statutory protections.”  […]

[HB 401] states that individuals, businesses with five or fewer owners, religious institutions and businesses operated by religious institutions are “not required to produce, create, or deliver a product or service” to a customer if they have a religious or moral objection. […]

The bill does not mention sexual orientation. Its wording is vague enough that it would allow businesses to reject any customer for religious or moral reasons. Asked if someone’s race could be cited as a reason to deny service under the legislation, Gonzalez said there already are federal protections to prevent discrimination based on race.

Executive director of Freedom for All Americans, Matt McTighe, released a statement on the bill’s introduction:

“HB 401 uses a thinly veiled guise of religion to justify denying services to people in need at hospitals, adoption agencies, and other important institutions that Floridians use every day. It’s cruel to deny any child the opportunity to be welcomed into a loving, supporting family, just because they or a parent might be gay or transgender. It’s wrong to refuse potentially life-saving medical care to a person who has been in an accident simply because they are LGBT. This bill goes too far and would make Florida a worse place for everyone.”

Gay rights lobbyist Carlos Guillermo Smith, said Gonzalez’s bill is “sweeping anti-LGBT legislation” that is “extreme even for the extremists”:

“Bills like this threaten Florida’s tourism-based economy and could provoke an Indiana-style backlash,” Smith said. “It would be a disaster for Florida.”

I cannot help but wonder about what psychological issues plague Gonzalez and how soon it will be before he's caught in some gay sex scandal.  Anyone this hysterical about gays is generally hiding something.   Let's hope the bill goes down to defeat.

A Pro-Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Will Not Resolve Parents’ Rights

At a recent panel discussion I attended, one topic that came up is what will still need to be done to win fully LGBT equality even if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down state same sex marriage bans as is widely expected.  For starters, it 29 states, - including Virginia which always brings up the rear guard it seems - LGBT employees will still be subject to being fired at will based on their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.  Then there is the whole realm of parental adoption.  Some states ban gay adoption, others restrict adoption to single gays or lesbians.  Here in Virginia, the governor and attorney general have stated that married same sex couples can adopt just like heterosexual couples, yet private adoption agencies so far are still allowed to discriminate against gays seeking to adopt based on "religious belief" - a parting gift to bigots by former Governor (and now convicted felon) Bob McDonnell and former Attorney General Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli.  The New York Times looks at the minefields that still will exist for gays seeking to adopt in many states.  Here are highlights:

When Jessica and Melissa Tincher take the four-hour road trip from their home in Lexington, Ohio, to visit relatives in Indiana, it is a two-vehicle affair: They need car seats for each of their four children — a 4-year-old, a 3-year-old and 2-year-old twins — along with Pack ’n Plays, high chairs, diapers and enough toys to keep everyone entertained. And then there are the two dogs, who together weigh 165 pounds.

But as their caravan crosses state lines, the family’s relationship changes. In Ohio, their marriage is not fully recognized, which is why only one parent — Jessica — was permitted to adopt the four biological siblings who came to them through the foster care system. When they drive into Indiana, where they were both raised and married last June, the couple’s union is valid, but Melissa still does not have any parental rights.

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.”

If same-sex marriage is legalized nationwide as part of the monumental case before the Supreme Court  . . . .  married couples living in states that do not acknowledge their unions will gain significant financial and legal benefits.   But as sweeping as the changes will be, one aspect of marriage may not always be automatically guaranteed: parental rights.

Family law varies in different states, which is why the advice to same-sex couples will remain the same: Nonbiological parents wishing to fully cement legal relationships with their children may need to take another step like adopting or securing another court-ordered judgment. If the court rules in their favor, gay couples would for the first time be able to widely adopt children regardless of which state they live in.

The right to adopt would provide a profound sense of relief to the Tinchers, along with same-sex households across the country, because it would largely end the inequality for many couples whose children have legal ties to only one parent.

Now, only individuals or couples whose marriages are legally recognized can generally adopt children in most states. That means same-sex couples can adopt in at least 35 states that issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, along with the District of Columbia . . .

National marriage status could also provide another way to create legal ties to children, although it may be more tenuous in some states. Traditionally, children born to a married woman are generally presumed to be the legal children of her husband. Many states also have laws that say the husband of a woman who is artificially inseminated with donor sperm is the child’s legal father, if he consents to the procedure. Those laws also apply to two married women in many states, but it is unclear whether all states will adopt that position if same-sex marriage is legalized nationwide.

Because of the way interstate recognition works on different issues, adoption is the only way to ensure that a parent-child relationship is recognized across state lines, said Joanna L. Grossman, a professor of family law at Hofstra University.

Some nonbiological parents may not even realize that they have legal relationships with only some of their children, or with those born after the same-sex couple was married.
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.

Read the entire piece.  And remember that all of these anti-LGBT laws and regulations have one ultimate purpose: (i) to force Christofascist religious beliefs on all citizens, (ii) to punish gays for not complying with Christofascist religious dogma, and (iii) to allow the Christofascists to feel superior and self-satisfied.  As for the children harmed by such bigotry their response, as Rhett Butler said to Scarlett, is simply "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."

Papal Backed Anti-Gay Referendum Fails in Slovakia

Yesterday Slovaks went to the polls to vote on among other things an anti-gay referendum backed by Pope Francis - yes, the same Francis who has caused delusional Catholics like Andrew Sullivan to foolishly think the Catholic Church might actually move form its 13th century views on gays. and human sexuality  Thankfully, the referendum failed miserably and proved yet again that the Vatican is increasingly out of step with those living in touch with objective reality.  Pink News has details.  Here are highlights:

Slovakia’s referendum to ban same-sex marriage and adoption has been declared invalid, as it failed to meet the required turnout.

The central European country went to the polls yesterday to vote on measures that would reinforce the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, ban same-sex adoption, and block schools from teaching sex education classes if parents object.

Due to the wording of the referendum, the only choices were either adopting new anti-gay measures or not – there was no option to actually allow same-sex marriage and adoption in the country.

[T]he entire poll has today been declared invalid, as the turnout for the referendum was just 21.4% – well below the 50% required to pass the measures.  Equality groups had encouraged people to boycott the vote, meaning the measure was favoured by 90% of those who did turn out.

A statement from gay rights group ILGA-Europe says: “Today’s result confirms that the electorate saw through the homophobic propaganda and were not willing to be part of a movement that discriminates against their fellow citizens.

Virginia Republicans Kill Second Parent Adoption Bill

Now that gays can marry in Virginia presumably married gay couples can adopt in the same manner as heterosexual married couples.  But, there are instances where gays - just like many widowed senior citizens - cannot marry without losing benefits they are otherwise entitled to.  To address this situation, Democrat Senator Janet Howell, who I have the good fortune to know, introduced a bill that would have allowed an unmarried partner to adopt the other partner's children.  The goal?  To afford children of such couples as much legal security as possible.  The response of the Virginia GOP - which disingenuously claims to care about children?  The bill was killed in a straight party line vote, with Republicans no doubt following the orders of Victoria Cobb and the Christofascists at The Family Foundation.  Here's the vote breakdown: 

YEAS--Puller, Locke, Barker, Favola, Wexton, Deeds, Petersen--7.
NAYS--Wagner, Hanger, McDougle, Norment, Black, Reeves, McWaters, Chafin--8.

The Virginian Pilot has more details.  Here are highlights:

A proposal to allow adoption by the partners of unmarried gay parents was rejected Friday by a Virginia Senate committee.

Thanks to a series of federal court decisions last year, same-sex couples now have the right to marry in Virginia. But some choose not to do so, and Sen. Janet Howell's measure would have accommodated such couples by allowing someone other than the spouse of a parent to adopt a child.

Howell, a Fairfax County Democrat, said children in such circumstances deserve the security and protection of two legal parents.

Adoption opens the door to additional health care options and other financial benefits, she said, and ensures that a child will still have a parent in the event of the biological parent's death.

Virginia doesn't require opposite-sex parents to marry in order for both to have legal rights to their children, but that's not true for same-sex parents, Howell said.

"We need to level the playing field," she said. "The world has shifted, but some children have been left behind."

The Republican-controlled Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee defeated the measure on a party-line 8-7 vote.

As the Washington Blade notes, Equality Virginia board member Catherine Read summed things up well:

“The Senate is killing all kinds of bills in committee because life here in the commonwealth is just so amazing idyllic for the straight white men who are the majority of ‘deciderers’ in our legislature,” Catherine Read, an Equality Virginia board member who lives in Fairfax, told the Blade. “To change the outcome, we need to change the people sitting in those seats.”

It is disappointing that even Sen. Frank Wagner who I have known for over 20 years voted with the gay-haters.