CommunityPam's House Blend

Let the kids rot in foster care

It’s amazing when the bigots try to defend their immoral positions and they actually reinforce the fact that they have no moral compass in their own words.

Ed Vitagliano’s AgapePress column, Why Mother-Father Couples Are Superior to Same-Sex Couples When It Comes to Adoption, wastes plenty of space on the old hoary argument that kids raised in same-sex households are more likely to “drift towards the sexual orientation of their homosexual ‘parents’.”

That’s laughable BS, but what makes Vitagliano’s piece completely insane is his assertion that social conservatives are really thinking that society is best served by preventing the adoption of kids — ones most straight couples do not want — by gays. At the very same time, he tries to defend how this position doesn’t mean bible-beaters would prefer kids going from foster home to foster home.

The knobend effectively makes the case that yes, the bigots do want kids languishing out there — because “kids deserve the best, and a mom and a dad best fit the bill” — no matter that there aren’t enough of those moms and dads stepping up to adopt.

Admittedly, this is a card that is hard to beat because too often in our culture, emotion does trump sound policy. However, according to Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, the issue is not a clear-cut winner for the homosexual lobby — at least not when one considers the actual numbers involved.

Knight says there are about 600,000 children in the U.S. foster care system at any given time, but at least half of these are caught up in custody battles and would not be candidates for adoption anyway.

On the other hand, Knight says that the National Council on Adoption puts the number of mother-father, married couples waiting to adopt at between one and two million. These married couples “are having such difficulty [adopting] in the U.S. that they are seeking children, at great expense, in Russia, China, Romania and other nations,” he said. “There is no excuse for deliberately placing a child in a motherless or fatherless household by design, except under unusual circumstances.”

True, of the 300,000 kids who are available for adoption, some would be unadoptable, being too old, perhaps, or having special needs that would scare away most couples wanting to adopt.

Or perhaps, a significant number of those kids are brown or black, which is why many couples adopt from Europe and Asia. Notice that isn’t discussed anywhere in the article.

But then, in this almost throwaway paragraph below, Vitagliano’s so dismissive of the misery that many kids face in endless foster situations — that it casts a bright light on the perverted thinking of these “pro-family” types — they only care about the fetus, not the child once it is born.

In the end, however, sad situations and heart-wrenching circumstances cannot determine public policy, which, after all, must be based on sound principles, and not exceptions. For example, even with unadoptable kids still in the foster care system, we would not want to place those children with a couple on the verge of divorce, or with two unemployed adults. This is not because such adults are unloving or incapable of being good parents, but because public policies must consider what is optimal — and less than optimal — most of the time.

These people are sick.

Previous post

'Ex-gays' split over Foster 'Hitler' smear of Besen

Next post

"The Cut-And-Run 2006 Campaign" -- Game On?

Pam Spaulding

Pam Spaulding