Adoption Discrimination--Roanoke Times Raises Important Questions about Broader Implications of Recent State Action

Interesting that none of the stories about the State Board of Social Services' action on the adoption rules focused on the larger questions raised by the decision to strip out of the nondiscrimination rules, not only protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation but also stripped protections against discrimination based on gender, religion, disability, age, family status and political beliefs.

Shouldn't all of us be talking about the implications of policies of some faith based adoption agencies who said during the public comment period on the rules and in written comments filed with the agency that they refuse (or want to be able to refuse) to place children with families of other faiths?

Is it an act of charity or an act of institutional self-preservation or proselytization for a faith-based adoption agency to require a pledge of faith to use their adoption services?

Is this an act in the best interests of the child they are placing or of the placing agency?

And, since the courts must approve every adoption, isn’t their discriminatory policy actually being effected by the state, rather than by a private party?

The Roanoke Times has begun the debate.

I hope it continues.

ADOPTION DISCRIMINATION
Gays were the focus of debate, but proposed adoption regulations went much further.

Roanoke Times Editorial, April 23, 2011

On Wednesday, the Virginia Board of Social Services, at the urging of Gov. Bob McDonnell, chose not to grant equality to unmarried couples and gay Virginians in the adoption process. Private adoption agencies may continue to discriminate against them. Loving homes will remain largely unavailable for kids in search of a family.

The debate leading up to the decision framed things primarily as a gay rights issue, but there was much more to it. The proposed regulations also would have made gender, age, religion, political beliefs, disability and family status non-issues in adoption.

The opposition primarily came from religious-based adoption agencies whose faith tells them gays are unfit parents.

Current regulations say only race, color or national origin may not be considered by agencies, no matter their religious teachings. Those rules exist for the simple reason that race should have nothing to do with adoption, even if in some twisted way one claims that religion demands it. A black parent should be able to adopt a white child from any agency; a white parent, an Asian child; and so on.

An adoption agency's faith tradition might also dictate that people of another religion are unfit parents. Maybe Democrats, too, or Republicans. People who vote for pro-choice candidates. People in wheelchairs. All remain viable, albeit distasteful, reasons an adoption agency might cite to reject parents. Yet because those groups' interests were caught up in a broader gay-rights fight, they too will continue to be potential objects of discrimination.

When it comes to finding good families for children, sexual orientation, faith, politics and all the rest have no place in the discussion. The surprising thing was not that the governor chose not to extend equal rights to gay people, but that he did not get behind the rest of the changes.

The Manchurian Candidate 2008 Remake

There is mounting evidence that John Sidney McCain is a real life "Manchurian Candidate" brainwashed by the Chinese controlled North Vietnamese during his captivity in Viet Nam and carefully prepared to turn over the United States to China after his election as President of the United States.

Let's start with the fact that McCain refers to his time in prison as his stay at the Hanoi Hilton. Pretty flattering description of what was supposed to be a time of deprivation and torture. And, he looks pretty comfortable in this picture from his time at the Hilton, doesn't he?

And, while the available evidence appears to support the claim that McCain did endure great hardship while a prisoner of war, there is no question that he broke under torture and signed a war crimes confession 10 months after his capture. Nonetheless, he was held for years after that, refusing early release supposedly because he didn't want to be part of North Vietnamese propaganda. But, there could be another explanation for this extended stay. It could be that he stayed as a part of a continuing indoctrination program that was preparing him for his future as a "Manchurian Candidate" under the control of the Chinese.

How else can you explain McCain's embrace of his former captors?

How else to explain the disdain that McCain has demonstrated towards POW/MIA families as documented by a 1992 article in the US Veteran Dispatch?

How else to explain why, as the junior Senator from Arizona, one of his first legislative initiatives was to lead "a legislative effort to force the Administration to open a lower-level American post in Vietnam, which could be preliminary to more formal relations?" (New York Times, June 1,1988)

How else to explain why McCain has been preaching about teaching soldiers in survival training about the need to forgive their enemies and captors since he wrote his thesis for the National War College in 1974?

And, then there was the accident that injured his first wife and opened the door for Cindy McCain to assume the Angela Lansbury/Meryl Streep role as McCain's handler. Although not a sitting Senator nor his mother as in the fictional book and movies, Cindy McCain clearly is a woman of great influence over McCain who could be holding his queen of diamonds trigger.

Shouldn't we be asking questions about just what the continuing effects of McCain's long term brainwashing and torture might be?

And, just what explains McCain's support from groups like Asian Americans for McCain that include very active Vietnamese volunteers?


What do these groups know that we should know?

Update: And, now the clincher ... John McCain owns a condo in Arlington ... "communist country" according to his brother.


P.S. Before you all hyperventilate, and, although I shouldn't have to tell you this, this is clearly satire provoked by the number of stupid conspiracy theory/inflammatory and worse emails I get implying that Barack Obama is a "domestic" or Muslim terrorist. Both of the candidates are fine men. McCain, Palin, their campaigns and friends should stick to the important issues of the day and distance themselves from the sleazy mud slinging from which McCain suffered in 2000 and from which he then distanced himself.

Can't Deliver on Promise to Control Growth? Shift Focus to "Illegal Immigration"

Interesting to note in watching this video dialogue with Corey Stewart, chair of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors ... he virtually acknowledges that his failure to deliver on his promise to control growth is the driver in his shift of focus to the scapegoats he's chosen to blame for this failure ... Prince William County's immigrant community. And, take a look at his audience for the campaign speech he is delivering to Help Save Manassas. Res ipsa loquitor.



More great video from Annabel and associates can be found in their interactive documentary file on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/9500Liberty

The Edwards Story

I'm always amazed at the ability of some people to see themselves as knowing what's "right" for everyone else.

Today, there's been a lot of that judgmental pap threading its way through (mostly Republican) blogs. The same sort of people who write letters to the editor telling women (not men) they shouldn't seek public office if they have small children at home (even where Dad has volunteered to take on the primary child care role) are out in force on the blogs today telling John Edwards that a "real man" would quit his campaign and go home to "there,there" his wife all day while she lives like she is dying.

Others are flogging Edwards for holding a news conference to discuss his wife's health portraying him as a candidate desperate for press coverage ... a narcissist looking for the spotlight.

Read some of the 86 comments on this post for a taste of what I'm talking about. Nice contrast is this post on The Ward View.

Who here doesn't know that the Edwards faced a choice when she got the diagnosis ... put the story out there their way or wait for the news to leak (probably on some blog using an unverified, "reliable source" ... oh, wait ... that already happened this morning). When you're running for president, as we've learned, nothing is private. So, the Edwards chose the better of the Hobson's choice they were facing ... look like they were hiding something while info oozed out or do a show and tell and get criticized for doing that.

Frankly, if I were Elizabeth Edwards modeling the behavior I'd want my children to learn from, I wouldn't go home to die and ask my husband to come hold my hand while I was doing it either. Elizabeth has chosen to live while she may be dying rather than to die while she is still living. A strong, positive message for her kids, who I am sure will receive all of the love and support that their parents can give them in this difficult time.

Now we didn't hear all these sanctimonious people telling Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis to pack it up and go home to be with her husband, ride her horses and die when she announced the recurrence of her breast cancer did we? Nope. It was "keep her in your prayers." "As she did in informing constituents of her diagnosis and treatment throughout the past 16 months, Davis will serve as a role model and educator for other women facing the challenge of ongoing breast cancer."

Not one pundit I could find lambasted Davis for not putting her husband first and going home to spend time with him, her children and her grandchildren while she is facing the same kind of prognosis that Edwards is. In fact, after Davis was first diagnosed with cancer, folks were downright cranky that someone was suggesting that Davis might be vulnerable to a primary because of her fragile "health."

So, what's that about? Partisan perspectives. Why Scarlett ....

The lesson here ... be true to yourself. Others will try to make you into something that you are not. Stay authentically you. There really isn't a choice. Ultimately, folks will "see" who you are and what you are made of. If you're running a scam, it will become clear. If you are not, that will become clear, too.

May Elizabeth and John Edwards continue to look forward with optimism and make the life choices that work best for them. May their family be rewarded with years of joy and success in achieving their life goals. May they find peace and love between the difficult moments and the tears.

May all of the "carpers" and "know betters" go home to their own lives (if they have them) and make their own life choices.

The Amendment Bit Allen Coming and Going

Looking at the CNN exit polls, it seems quite clear that the Marshall/Newman amendment hit Allen coming and going.

Early polling indicated that African American voters were not significantly more likely to vote yes on the marriage amendment than white voters. And this was born out by CNN's exit polls which showed white voters at 58-42 and black voters at 56-44.

On the other hand, CNN exit polls also indicate that black voters made up 16% of the electorate in this election. If that holds true, it means black voters made up a higher percentage of the electorate than in any other statewide election except Wilder's gubernatorial victory(17%).

Since black voters are more reliably Democratic in partisan contests (of which the amendment was not one), the push by va4marriage to turn out more pro-amendment voters, including those from African American constituencies, certainly did backfire on Allen.

The effort caused more black voters to turn out than otherwise would have been the case, and when they did turn out to vote yes on the amendment, they voted for Webb.

That this was an important aspect in Webb's victory seems clear where, as here, turnout in many high Democratic performance precincts was, on the whole, lower than in high Republican performance precincts.

Put this together with the fact that The Commonwealth Coalition's GOTV campaign was focused on turning out anti-amendment voters in swing districts (35 to 65% Dem performance) and anti-amendment voters were, on the whole, two to three times more likely to vote for Webb than Allen regardless of party.

Thus, it is fair to say that the ballot question turned out voters both for and against the amendment who were less likely to vote for Allen than for Webb.

Ironic, isn't it?