BBC journalist Katya Adler and Juan Luis Moreno

Between 1960 and 1989, as many as 300,000 newborn infants may have been trafficked by the Catholic Church, initially with the full knowledge and co-operation of the regime of dictator Francisco Franco. After Franco’s death in 1975, the Spanish government’s involvement is alleged to have been a case of government negligence and failure to regulate the adoption industry.

The baby trafficking appears to have been on two levels. The first was a politically motivated practice designed to punish Franco’s opposition and critics. If a family were deemed dangerous to Franco’s rule, which began in 1939, and had a pregnant family member, they would be told that the baby was stillborn or had died just after being born. In these cases, it was normally a couple’s first-born child and may have been the grandchild of a Franco opponent. 1960 was still within that time when no family member attended births and women were sedated during delivery, so the deception was easy to pull off. The second level was actually routine with the Catholic Church worldwide. Unwed pregnant girls and women were turned over to the nuns until they delivered their babies. The mothers were relentlessly pressured to give up the babies for adoption, and it was not unheard of for a girl to be told her baby had died at birth if there was the slightest possibility that she was going to a “problem.”

The hospitals and clinics in Spain were run by the Catholic Church, and arranged many of the adoptions before the baby was born. One woman, 89-year-old Ines Perez, has testified that a priest attached to the San Ramon clinic in Madrid told her to fake a pregnancy, wear padding which he supplied under her clothing, so that no one would question the arrival of her “baby” in 1969. Birth certificates were faked to show the adoptive parents as the birth parents.

In the period immediately following the death of Franco, several amnesty laws were passed concerning crimes committed by the regime, in the hopes that not prosecuting would help the nation heal faster. Additionally, the Church has traditionally been protected from government oversight and prosecution, so there is no national interest in pursuing these adoptions. The investigations have been undertaken by regional prosecutors, with 900 cases currently under review.

An informal effort has begun to set up a DNA database for the mothers whose babies were taken during this period, but there is no government attempt to create a central clearing house for these inquiries. Since so many of these adopted children were issued birth certificates with their adoptive parents listed as their biological parents, there is no reason for these adults to question their parentage. It was a deathbed confession that started the investigation.

When Juan Luis Moreno’s father was dying, he confessed that he and his wife had bought Juan from a priest in the northern city of Zaragoza. At the same time, the parents of Antonio Barroso had bought him from the same priest for 200,000 pesetas, a huge sum at the time (No date was given for this transaction, but from 1959 to 1967, that would have been equivalent to $3,333, after 1967 $2,857) Antonio Barroso said that his adoptive parents paid installments for ten years for him.

There were also international adoptions. Texan Randy Ryder, 40, was one of those adoptions. His birthdate led Spaniard Manoli Pagador to believe Randy is her stolen son. An upcoming BBC television special tracks her search for the facts. Until it airs, the press has not been made privy to the results.

Randy Ryder and his adoptive mother, 1971Randy Ryder and Manoli Pagador, 2011

Randy Ryder and Manoli Pagador, 2011

In come cases, particularly in the San Ramon clinic, when a mother was told her baby had died and demanded to see the baby, she was shown a corpse that many of these mothers have testified appeared to be freezing cold. Photos of a baby in a freezer, taken in the 1980′s were shown to the BBC reporter Katya Adler in their course of her investigations.

The adoptive parents were equally clueless about the circumstances. They were told the mothers had voluntarily given up their babies, instead of being pressured or deceived to do so.

In 1987, the Spanish government started taking responsibility for adoptions, and proper records began being kept.

Adler gave this overview of the scandal, “The situation is incredibly sad for thousands of people. There are men and women across Spain whose lives have been turned upside-down by discovering the people they thought were their parents actually bought them for cash. There are also many mothers who have maintained for years that their babies did not die – and were labelled ‘hysterical’ – but are now discovering that their child has probably been alive and brought up by somebody else all this time.”

Experts believe that as much as 15% of the adoptions that took place in Spain between 1960 and 1989 were part of this conspiracy.

It is grossly unfair of those who are working to expose this to characterize the money that changed hands as the babies being “bought for cash.” There is always money involved in an adoption, fees to be paid for legal work, “donations” made to hospitals or clinics to cover costs of the delivery, even layers of bribes to paid in foreign adoptions. The people who were adopting these babies probably didn’t think of it as a case of buying a baby, but of the normal costs involved in an adoption.

The scandal is in the collusion between the Franco regime and the church in stealing babies from the families of political enemies and in the ways in which unwed mothers were lied to about their babies by members of the Catholic Church. Some aspects of the Church’s relationships with unwed mothers have already been exposed in other countries. As the story unfolds in Spain, it will undoubtedly be repeated in other countries – stories of supposedly dead babies and off-the-book adoptions.

The Church can do two things at this point. Most probably, given their history, they will circle the wagons and obstruct investigations. Those involved will petition their governments and since most countries do not have the kinds of “amnesty for history” laws that Spain has, the Church will find itself under the same kind of scrutiny, criminal charges and civil suits that it has faced over pedophile priests. Or, the church can volunteer to set up DNA databases, open its records and help these mothers and children find each other. This goes beyond the simple desire to know the truth. There are strong medical reasons for adoption records to be opened. People deserve to know if they are carrying a genetic time bomb like a family history of breast cancer or paranoid schizophrenia.

The child abuse scandal has seriously damaged the Catholic Church, as much because of the attempts at denial than because of the abuses themselves. An international adoption scandal would just worsen the Church’s position in the world. Or, if saner heads can prevail at the Vatican, they can use this situation to start to rebuild the trust their members have lost in them.

Related articles

• Spain’s stolen babies (bbc.co.uk)

Bridget Wismer and the contested baby boy

The cross-jurisdiction Delaware-Pennsylvania case of a woman accused of selling her baby is a real problem for conservatives. If they applaud her decision not to abort an unwanted pregnancy, they must support her decision to give the baby to a gay couple. If they condemn giving the baby to a gay couple, are they tacitly approving an abortion?

These are the facts as presented by the parties involved: Bridget Wismer (who lives in Delaware) had two children and no husband. She discovered she was pregnant. She did not want to abort the pregnancy and did not want to give the baby up permanently for adoption, forfeiting all contact with the child. Enter John Gavaghan and his long-term partner Antonio, who live in Philadelphia. They offered to help her financially if she would allow them to foster the child (no legal adoption involved) and raise it as their own, allowing her free access to the child. Everyone agreed to the arrangement and were very happy with their decision. Shortly before the baby was born, John and Antonio had a baby shower for “their” baby.

Wismer’s grandmother didn’t like the whole idea – whether she objected to the fostering part or the gay parents part is not known. Grandma alerted the authorities, told them that Wismer had offered the child on Facebook for $15,000 and had “sold him” to Gavaghan. The police arrested Wismer and seized the baby from Gavaghan, placing him in foster care. Wismer is free on bail and presumably caring for her other children herself. In a statement to the courts requesting higher bail for Wismer, the prosecutor insisted that Wismer had posted the baby on Facebook and stated her intention to use the money to take her other children to Disney World. The Disney World part is based on a Christmas present Gavaghan and Antonio (last name not published) decided to give Wismer and her children. It was not payment for the baby. It was intended as a thank you gift for fulfilling their desire to have a child. The “tipster” cited in the prosecution’s filings is assumed to be the grandmother.

Wismer does not have a Facebook account. Wismer and Gavaghan have known each other for some time and were friends, though the police say they were introduces during the pregnancy by mutual friends. Either way, this did not involve advertising for some stranger to buy the baby.

If Wismer’s and Gavaghan’s account of the arrangement reached is accurate, Wismer did not sell her baby. She entered into the ancient practice of fostering. The worst thing they are guilty of is not involving a lawyer in the arrangement. From their statements, to the press and to law enforcement, these are three consenting adults who were trying to do something positive, albeit unconventional, for a baby. During the baby shower, Gavaghan wrote in a card, “Bridget, thanks with all our hearts for giving me and Antonio a baby. We love you, respect you and thank you with all our hearts. You made our life full.”

The ridiculous part of this arrest is the fact that Delaware’s Division of Family Services was allegedly involved before the baby’s birth. They had responded to the grandmother’s complaint with an investigation and gave their approval if the Philadelphia child protection services approved of Gavaghan as a foster parent.

Gavaghan’s name is on the baby’s birth certificate as the baby’s father, and the Delaware prosecutors say he paid $2,000 to Wismer for her to do that. Delaware police say they have a video of Gavaghan signing papers and handing over money to “a woman” less than a week after the baby’s birth and allege that this is proof of the “sale.” Records indicate that Gavaghan gave money to the unemployed Wismer, who lives with her mother, at random intervals during the pregnancy. Wismer is currently free on $1,500 bail and Gavaghan free on $7,000 bail. Gavaghan has refused to speak to the press until he has retained counsel.

Related articles

• Delaware mom denies trying to sell baby (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Mom denies trying to sell her newborn (philly.com)
• Mom Sells Son To Go To Disney World (buzz103.radio.com)
• Total Depravity: The ‘Mother’ Charged with Selling her Baby- so She Could Go to Disney World (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

California Rep. Pete Stark

Last month, California’s 80-year-old Democratic Representative Pete Stark introduced the “Every Child Deserves A Family Act.” It would prohibit “descrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent, or the sexual orientation or gender identity of the child involved.” It is a very important piece of legislation, not just for gay and lesbian parents or prospective foster parents, but for the thousands of children who need parents and foster placements. Its chances of passage in the Republican-controlled House are slim to none.

Naturally, Liberty Counsel, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family have attacked the bill, with FRC’s Peter Sprigg saying that “children will suffer” if it passes and “This represents one more case in which we are seeing the rights of adults placed ahead of the best interests of the children” while Kelly Rosati of Focus claims “We need to do all we can to encourage successful and innovative partnerships, rather than try to shut agencies of the process. It’s the children who will suffer.” Her issue is the number of private adoption agencies that will not place children with gay parents.

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel alleges that the bill is unconstitutional and shows that the “homosexual activist political tsunami destroys everything in its path that is righteous, good and beneificial to society. This bill has nothing to do with providing adoptive homes for children in need and has everything to do with shutting down all biblically-sound Christian adoption agencies areound the country. This bill puts the [political] demands of selfish, adult homosexual activists…ahead of the welfare of children and religious liberty, and it must be stopped.” As always, Barber cites the “preponderance” of studies that “conclusively” show children are best served in a home with a mother and father.

Those would be the same studies that former Sen. Rick Santorum used during his tear-filled presentation in support of DOMA. As was pointed out then, these studies were done to demonstrate the impact of divorce or single-parenthood on children, and did not include same-sex parents. When same-sex parents are studied, the conclusion is the same, two parents are better than one. The most famous study of same-sex parents, fifteen of them, have shown that the children of same-sex couples are better educated, better adjusted, usually live at a higher financial level, well, in short, they rate higher on every measure of child development and family environment. The fact is, same sex parents want children and intentionally have children, the two factors that make the most difference in how children grow up.

Stark’s bill needs to be amended to cover only state and federal agencies. That removes the objection that it will infringe on anyone’s religious rights. Private religious adoption services should be allowed to set their own standards. But the religious right should not, and constitutionally is not entitled to, set standards for the secular, civil agencies operated by the government. All foster placements are supposed to be done by the government, since it is the government that removes children from unsafe environments.

Funny thing about Rick Santorum. When he ran for re-election to his senate seat in 2006, I was a very nasty person and wrote letters to the editors of every major newspaper in Pennsylvania explaining how Santorum had lied on the floor of the Senate during the DOMA debate, how every “study” he had cited was either not relevant to same-sex couples or was intentionally warped to support an anti-gay agenda. Other than the paper in Wilkes-Barre, I’m not sure how many papers published that letter. What I do know is Santorum lost his seat. When voters understand the truth, when they are shown how the “studies” are manipulated or have not looked at the people they are being used to attack, they do the right thing.

If there is a “homosexual activist political tsunami” it hasn’t been doing a very good job for the past five years of discrediting the studies they use to fight same-sex marriage and gay-lesbian parenting. The “same sex marriage destroyed marriage in Scandinavia” study used marriage statistics from years long before there was same-sex marriage in Scandinavia to skew the results. The parenting studies they use didn’t even include same-sex parents. In five years, the organizations that are supposed to be acting on behalf of the gay community have done little or nothing to discredit the use of these studies in legislative hearings and the public forum. If they are unwilling to fight lies with hard facts, what are we doing supporting them?

Related articles

• Michigan Adoption Agency Earns Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s “All Children – All Families” Seal of Recognition (hrcbackstory.org)
• Maggie Gallagher shucks and jives her way through the DOMA hearing (pamshouseblend.com)
• Minnesota Family Council and NOM Promote Anti-Gay Bullying (lezgetreal.com)
• Santorums Choose Which Of God’s Laws To Obey (lezgetreal.com)
• Rick Santorum: adoption children is a privilege – and gays aren’t entitled to it (pamshouseblend.com)
• Every Child Deserves A Family, And Pete Stark Wants To Make That Happen (lezgetreal.com)
• Legal Idiocy in Virginia (lezgetreal.com)
• Speaking Up for Same-Sex Parents in Texas (mombian.com)

Northern Ireland's Gerry Adams

I’ve always said I don’t do LGBT stories, but there are times when the history in my field relates to the present in the LGBT community. So, another observation from the straight lady on the Lesbian blog……

One of the most important figures in the Northern Ireland peace negotiations was internationally recognized activist Gerry Adams. He was a hero of the cause of Irish Catholic equality. We all knew and ignored the fact that he had been an IRA terrorist with blood on his hands. We tunneled our vision to see the politician. But for years, the negotiations went nowhere. No one would give a single effing bloody inch.

Then, one morning, Gerry woke up and had an epiphany – he could have a life after the conflict. He did not have to live his whole life defined as a warrior. He could have a fulfilling life without the battle. That day, the nature of the negotiations changed. That epiphany made peace possible. Gerry brought his wife home from her 18 year protective exile. They quickly had a little girl in addition to the son they had before they separated for so many years. He has built a good life since the peace accord, a fulfilling life.

There can be life after the conflict. The battle does not have be a person’s whole identity. Only when the warriors realize that, can they do two things – fight to win and fight to make peace.

There has been virtually no reaction from the major LGBT groups about the amendment passed in Minnesota. Aside from MSNBC, where is the outrage? When the legal challenge to Georgia’s same-sex-marriage-banning amendment failed in the state supreme court, why wasn’t it taken to the Federal courts? The Georgia constitution clearly states an amendment can have only one clause. The same sex marriage ban had two. That’s about as legally simple as it ever gets. It’s freaking rare that a legal issue is that simple. Over and over, the battles never go far enough, or they appear, to anyone who actually knows the Constitution, to be conducted on the wrong battlefield.

In Oklahoma, the anti-Sharia amendment is being challenged in Federal court on the grounds that it is a backdoor establishment of a state religion. Any law that forbids religious worship has in effect stated that only one form of religion is acceptable. That is the proper grounds for fighting anti-gay and anti-abortion laws. They are based in religious belief, not in science or civil secular law principles. According to the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment, we should not be allowing clergy to have the right to certify the civil contract of marriage. It grants civil legal power to clergy. So why aren’t the legal challenges to those laws being fought on those grounds? Why are we bothering with the vague parameters of civil rights when we have the clear, indisputable First Amendment? Why are setbacks accepted so calmly?

There is a growing feeling in some parts of the LGBT grassroots that those big, moneyed groups that are supposed to be fighting for LGBT rights don’t really have their hearts in it. It is beginning to be believed that they are stalling and procrastinating because they can’t see how they could ever earn as good a living doing anything else. It’s a nasty, catty thing to rumor, but it has an unfortunate basis in evidence. What have they done for you lately? Not bloody much.

Do you remember in May of 1990, when Doonesbury comic strip character Andy Lippincott died of AIDS in his earthquake-damaged apartment as the Beach Boys “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” played in the background? The song is so relevant to the battle for same sex marriage rights. The moment was so poignant, so pure in its expression of the hope for equality. “Wouldn’t it be nice if WE….” That was 21 years ago this month. Twenty-one years have been spent giving money to lobbyists, giving money to legal experts, and falling farther and farther away from the goals. Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’s elimination is still being held up by fanatical anti-gays in Congress. Those same fanatics want to use taxpayers’ money to hire an outside law firm to defend the indefensible in DOMA. We are losing ground to the religious rightwingnuts every day, both on gay rights issues and women’s rights issues.

If you can imagine how nice it would be if you were equal, if you can see a future without the conflict, with the battles won, with all men and women free and equal and able to determine their own futures, then you should be the one leading the charge, not a bunch of overpaid “activists” who can’t imagine that they could have fulfilling lives without that identity of “activist.”

Related articles

• Faith Leaders Speak Out Against Anti-LGBT Marriage Amendment in North Carolina (hrcbackstory.org)
• Minnesota House Passes Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment (lezgetreal.com)
• New HRC Poll Shows Majority of Christians Support LGBT Equality (hrcbackstory.org)
• Equality NC’s faith leaders press conference challenges anti-gay lawmakers, counters fundie rally (pamshouseblend.com)
• As Anti-Marriage Group Wants ‘Adult’ Debate, Senator Frankin Expresses Dismay Over Minnesota Vote (lezgetreal.com)
• Minnesota Marriage Battle Begins (advocate.com)
• Poll: Christians Support LGBT Equality (advocate.com)

Image via Wikipedia

05/03/2011 – by Cynthia S. Wright

Rick Santorum, yet again exposes himself for the closed minded bigot that he truly is. During an appearance at a Family Leader Conference in Iowa – Santorum weighs in on his thoughts about adoption. Apparently, Santorum believes that only straight, married couples should have the “privilege” to adopt. In his opinion, since LGBT aren’t allowed to have children the “right” way – they aren’t entitled to adopt – so they should leave well enough alone.

To nail home his point further, Santorum discusses a particular incident involving himself and a lesbian, that questioned his beliefs.

A lesbian woman came up to me and said, ‘why are you denying me my right?’ I said, ‘well, because it’s not a right.’ It’s a privilege that society recognizes because society sees intrinsic value to that relationship over any other relationship.

It is amazing how Santorum and his ilk are quick to dismiss the rights of LGBT people that would like to adopt. Is Santorum inferring that if a drug addicted/abusive straight couple wanted to adopt – he would let them have a child over a loving, LGBT couple? It fits his guidelines of having both a male and female parent – so, would he honestly say they would be better for the child? Why do you think a lot of children up in adoption anyway? That’s right, more than likely, they are given away or taken away from straight people. So, how are they better, when they can’t get their act together in the first place – since they are automatically given that “privilege”.

Santorum also neglects to mention that there is really no social science research proof to support his claim – most seem to go off their own intuition and not fact.  The Wonk Room recently published a quote from USC sociologist, Timothy Biblarz where he expresses how Santorum’s thinking lacks credibility.

Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father. Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents. The bottom line is that the science shows that children raised by two same-gender parents do as well on average as children raised by two different-gender parents. This is obviously inconsistent with the widespread claim that children must be raised by a mother and a father to do well.

Next time, Santorum do your research and worry about your own family. A child should be accepted into a healthy, loving home, sexual orientation should have no baring on that at all.

Nerina Penzhorn’s upcoming documentary, “Waited For” centers around stories of South African lesbians (the majority of which, happen to be white) that adopt across racial lines by adopting mostly black children.

The documentary is starting to make the festival circuit rounds, staring with Frameline and New Zealand in the June months. Afterward, it will be featured at the Out in Africa Film Festival in South Africa in August.

WAITED FOR preview from Nerina Penzhorn on Vimeo.

Virginia Atty. Gen. Ken Cuccinelli

Sometimes, great legal minds are so focused on one aspect of a law, they fail to see the rest of its implications. That’s what just happened in Virginia.

In Virginia, only married couples – hetero of course – and single men and women regardless of sexual orientation can adopt or foster children. Former Governor Tim Kaine proposed changing the rules to allow same-sex couples to adopt or foster and requiring faith-based adoption services to allow it. The current Republican Governor Bob McDonnell opposed the changes. On Wednesday, the Virginia Board of Social Services voted to reject the changes. Their decision was reinforced by a memo from the state’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II. According to Cuccinelli, the changes would violate Virginia law. Since adoption and fostering are not barred according to sexual orientation or even marital status, one can only assume that the law Cuccinelli thinks would be violated is the one against same-sex marriage.

Other than a slap in the face, though, this ruling does nothing to stop prospective adoptive gay and lesbian parents. Virginia does not have same-sex marriage, so technically, Virginia doesn’t have same-sex couples. The law allows single gays and lesbians to adopt and foster. If there is no such thing in Virginia as a gay couple, then there really is no barrier to adoption or fostering by gays and lesbians. They just have to do it singly, technically. How the family is constructed after that is not governed by the law.

Yes, this ruling imposes a monetary burden on same-sex couples. First, being able to use only one income impacts meeting whatever income requirements the state or agency has for adoption or fostering. Second, the couple will have to come up with the money to have a whole lot of contracts created to protect the rights of the non-adoptive parent. In many ways, it will be no different from the situation faced by a second spouse when the birth parent refuses to surrender parental rights, or even by a first spouse if the child involved was born out-of-wedlock.

We are probably a couple of decades away from the legal system recognizing not just same-sex parenting rights, but the rights of blended families. We need a uniform, streamlined way to deal with the complications of unwed parents, divorced parents, step-parents, surrogacy, artificial insemination and adoption. As long as there are states that think of themselves as a state first and a nation second, we’re stuck with this nonsense. Each state will continue to think of itself as a singular entity and capable of writing laws according to “community standards.”

There really are some issues that cross the straight-LGBT divide and this is one of them. The rights of adopted children to find their birth parents, the rights of parents who have given up their children to find and contact them, the rights of grandparents, the rights of step-parents in the convoluted world of blended families, the rights of non-married parents, these are not just gay issues. We no long are born and die within a five mile radius. We are a very mobile society in which people cross state lines all the time. These are universal issues that are a consequence of our modern society.

Those three words “our modern society” are at the hub of these issues. Conservatives, and especially the religious right, believe in a myth of a perfect little Christian nation where only straights lived, no one earned their living in prostitution, no one ever beat or killed their spouse or children, everyone was white, bluebirds sang in the trees and the skies were not cloudy all day. There is this really stupid e-mail that has been circulating for a few years. It’s main message is about taxes, but it alleges that we were a perfect nation and women stayed home and raised their children just 100 or 60 years ago, depending on the version. When my aunt sent it to me, I reminded her that 70 years ago, my father’s single mother was scrubbing toilets in the same Empire State Building where she had worked thirty years later because she too was a single mother. Duh.

We can’t go back to that perfect world because it never existed. The longer we treat family law according to that myth, the longer we hurt our children. We all agree that children need stable, loving homes. The only way that is going to happen is for us to put the needs of those children above the prejudices of the religious fanatics and above the interests of adults.

On the other hand, LGBT rights should not be granted at the cost of the rights of others. Again, this is one of those cases. Any church that believes that homosexuality is a sin should not be forced to place children in same-sex families, any more than it should be forced to perform same-sex marriages. It is a violations of the religious rights of those churches. Sorry, but no one can truly be free if their freedom is bought at the price of another’s oppression. If the LGBT community ever gets its act together and starts arguing for its rights on the grounds that this is a secular nation and anti-gay laws are back-door establishment of a state religion, then it must be willing to let churches exercise their right to freedom of worship, and that includes just backing away and letting them live in their perfect myths. We can legislate against violence, harassment and discrimination within the secular world, but we should not even try to legislate tolerance, anymore than they should try to legislate intolerance. The best we should be doing is trying to legislate a separation of the secular rights of citizens from the religious rights of other citizens.

On any given issue, one will find literally dozens of advocacy groups. There is no strength in being divided. There is only strength in unity. Those advocating for LGBT parental rights would benefit from working with those who are advocating for single-parent adoption, ease of establishing legal rights for un-married parents, fairness in child support, a whole raft of issues. There is more to be gained from working together to solve the myriad problems of children in a “non-traditional” situation than from narrowing the focus to just gay adoption and gay marriage.

Related articles

• Homophobic Attorney General Derails LGBT Adoption Rights In Virginia (lezgetreal.com)
• Cuccinelli: Va. Should Reject Antibias Policy (advocate.com)
• Virginia Social Services Panel Votes 7-2 to Reject Changes That Would Allow Adoptions by Gay Couples (towleroad.com)
• NOM Goes Ballistic Over Virginia’s New Foster Care And Adoption Regulations (lezgetreal.com)
• State Board of Social Services Fails to Serve the Best Interests of Virginia’s Children (hrcbackstory.org)
• Va. Official Opposes Antibias Rule (advocate.com)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was suffering from split personality disorder yesterday during her bill signings. She was swinging on both sides of the conservative/liberal line.

She vetoed the bill that would have allowed Arizona to usurp the Federal government’s power to determine the qualifications of a Presidential candidate. The bill would have required candidates to provide the state with their birth certificates. Brewer vetoed the birther bill. Brava.

She vetoed the bill that would have allowed students on Arizona’s college campuses to carry both open and concealed weapons. Since Jared Loughner used to scare the heck out of his college classmates without a weapon, this bill was an invitation to a campus massacre. Brewer vetoed it. Brava again.

Then, she signed the bill giving preference to married couples for adoptions in Arizona. Boo.

This bill is being perceived as anti-gay. The LGBT community is saying that since Arizona does not recognize gay marriages performed in other states and does not allow it themselves, this bill is aimed at them. The LGBT community is understandably outraged.

I only do LGBT stories when a straight perspective is really needed. This is one of those stories. The idea that anti-single parent adoption laws only impact gay parents is one that has been around since Rosie O’Donnell pushed the idea concerning Florida’s adoption laws. The fact is, gays and lesbians are not the only unmarried people who adopt children. These laws impact straight singles as well, and they impact straight singles in the area of adoption of special-needs children most. Straight singles are not as likely to want perfect little white babies as white married couples are. These are the people more prone to adopt a child damaged by fetal alcohol syndrome, birth defect, child abuse. These are the people who get involved in single-parent adoption because of a personal connection to a specific child with extraordinary needs.

In denying that married-couple-only adoption laws impact straight singles, the LGBT community cuts off a very important ally. The community is seriously insulting the other part of this nation that is being discriminated against by the right wingnuts. Allies are useful. Insulting them is dumb. Joining with straight singles in opposing such laws increases the opposition numbers way beyond a simple victimized minority and into a major force to be reckoned with.

Over half of American support gay marriage. That number can be adversely impacted if straights start to feel that the LGBT community is rejecting straight allies in a shared cause. This is one lesson the LGBT community really can take from the civil rights struggle. A lot of white supporters of black civil rights got turned off over the years by the incidents of black-on-white prejudice they encountered.

Adoption should be a matter of connecting an orphaned or abandoned child with the best person or persons to love, cherish and raise that child. Marriage should not be a pre-requisite for that.

Related articles

• ARIZONA: Jan Brewer Vetoes Birther Bill, Approves Bill Restricting Gay Adoption (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Signs Law Giving Married Couples Priority Consideration Over Gays in Adopting Children (towleroad.com)
• Will Brewer Veto Antigay Adoption Bill? (advocate.com)
• Jan Brewer Finally Gets It Right (jwhester.wordpress.com)
• Affirmative Action for Straight Marriage (bilerico.com)

According to CNN - Zsa Zsa Gabor’s husband wants his 94-year-old wife to become a mother again using an egg donor, artificial insemination and a surrogate mother, Prince Frederic von Anhalt told CNN Thursday.  “I’ve gone through the initial steps of donor matching and blood work and next week the donation process will begin,” von Anhalt said.

Gabor’s only child, Francesca Hilton, described herself as shocked when told of the plan Thursday. “That’s just weird,” Hilton said.

Von Anhalt, 67, said he is working with Dr. Mark Surry of the Southern California Reproductive Center in Beverly Hills. CNN calls to the center have not been returned. Gabor has suffered major health problems in the last year, including hip replacement surgery and a leg amputation. She has been unable to walk since a 2002 car accident.

“I’m a retired guy,” von Anhalt said. “I can take care of it.” -  IT – take care of IT – the THING, THE baby or the Deal?

Gabor talked about adding a new baby to the family when they got married 25 years ago, and she brought the topic up again in recent months, he said.

Gabor is not foreign to denying age and reality. Some years back my cousin was fired from a project -  styling Gabor for the cover of Vogue – way back in the 1980′s.  Gabor gave Cuz her clothing size for the shoot.  When Cuz showed up – to her horror she found that Gabor had significantly  underestimated her own size.   Was there also not a story to do with slapping a cop when stopped for a traffic violations with age dishonesty on driver’s license?

One reason is their desire to have someone carry on the famous Gabor name. None of her two sisters left an heir and her only child does not use the Gabor name, von Anhalt said.  Ahuh good reason to have a BABY – with senile and footless parents. Nice -  Interesting that BABY Gabor will not take in Daddy Gabor’s famous name! The Prince of whatever – does he have an heir or is this a one sided deal.

Francesca Hilton, 64, is Gabor’s only child, the product of her second marriage to hotel magnate Conrad Hilton.  She told CNN that her full name is Constance Francesca Gabor Hilton.

The process, which includes finding an egg donor and a surrogate mother to give birth to the baby, will cost about $100,000, von Anhalt estimated. The prince, who acquired his royal title when he was adopted as an adult by a German woman, is Gabor’s ninth husband. AH he is NOT a real Prince! or not a blood one anyway.

He has complained in recent months about financial burdens caused by his wife’s hospitalizations. While he put their Bel Air, California mansion up for sale earlier this year, he said he is not actively marketing it. “In life you need something to live for,” he said. “If my wife passes away before me, I have nothing to live for.”  Good excuse-  bring on the baby an infant an infant….

The Hungarian-born actress, famous for films a million years ago – No not T-Rex survives the Civil War – Her more prominent films include John Huston’s Toulouse-Lautrec biopic, “Moulin Rouge,” in 1952, “The Story of Three Loves” in 1953, “The Girl in the Kremlin” in 1957, and Orson Welles’ 1958 cult classic, “Touch of Evil.”

source http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/04/14/gabor.baby/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Melanie Nathan

Portland -  A  Multnomah County Judge, County Circuit Court Judge Tennyson issued a ruling in  in the Shineovich v. Kemp case, ruling that Sondra Shineovich consented to the artificial insemination of her former domestic partner, Sarah Kemp, resulting in the pregnancies and birth of two children and that the two intended to raise the children as co-parents.

The ruling noted that the evidence showed much weight that Shinovich had contributed  with her  “actions, emotions and money.” and that the two had a partnership intending to raise the children together.

Ms. Shineovich had previously failed at trial court level to win her right to  the acknowledgment that she is the legal parent of the children, carried  by Ms. Kemp.  She took her case to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which sided with her, in July 2009, declared ORS. 109.243 unconstitutionally discriminatory on the basis of  gender and sexual orientation.

READ DECISION – Aa 11 Shineovich Sondra, Tennyson Decision

Aa 11 Shineovich Sondra, Tennyson Decision

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles

• “The Kids Are All Right” Cast Responds to Oscar Noms (lezgetreal.com)
• Oscar countdown: “The Kids Are All Right” (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Annette Bening Would Play a Lesbian Again (lezgetreal.com)

Lynn Featherstone

Melanie Nathan – February 13-2011-

Media reports say that the British government is considering changing its civil union laws to equate to marriage, by lifting the ban against same-sex couples entering into such Unions in religious congregations.  This will eradicate the last remaining distinctions between gay civil partnerships and traditional marriage.

According to AP  an un-sourced reports in the BBC and British newspapers say that the government’s equalities minister Lynne Featherstone is preparing to propose a move which would allow gay couples to marry in religious ceremonies. Some reports have raised the possibility that such ceremonies would be formally known as “marriages.”

Marriage and civil partnership are already virtually identical under British law, but because same sex unions are carried out by government registrars, the ceremony must take place in a public building and religious references are banned.

Acutely aware that “marriage” versus “civil partnership” — denotes a stigma attached to same sex relationships,  activists continue to press for parity in marriage.

Many reports raised the possibility that such ceremonies would be officially known as marriages.

“Britain’s civil partnership law, introduced in 2005, currently gives gay couples the same legal rights and protections, adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual married partners.

However this does not mean that religious organizations would be forced to allow gays and lesbians to marry.

The Church of England, for example, has already said it would not allow its buildings to be used for same sex weddings, no matter what they are called. The Catholic Church and British Muslim groups remain strongly opposed to same sex unions of any kind.”

Once the “religious ban” is lifted other religions will likely permit same-sex marriages in their congregations – such as the reform Judaism – which in the USA embraces same-sex unions.

by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles

• U.K. to clear final barrier to gay marriage: reports (ctv.ca)

Stigma, Social Context, and Mental Health: Lesbian and Gay Couples Across The Transition to Adoptive Parenthood, groundbreaking new research about gay adoptive parents by Dr. Abbie E. Goldberg, has been published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology by the American Psychological Association in February, 2011.

Dr. Goldberg’s new work, co-authored with JuliAnna Z. Smith at The Center for Research on Families at The University of Massachusetts/Amherst, is the first study to examine changes in depression and anxiety across the first year of adoptive parenthood in same-sex couples. Ninety same-sex couples (52 lesbian couples and 38 gay male couples) were studied and profiled at three separate times during their first year of adoptive parenthood.

. . .

Dr. Goldberg’s landmark 2010 book Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle, also published by the American Psychological Association, was the first full-length analysis of the research on gay parenting, summarizing research data on the subject from the 1970’s to the present . That research was consistent in suggesting that the outcomes and well-being of children raised by gay and lesbian parents were no different than those of children raised by heterosexual parents.

. . .

Abbie E. Goldberg, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Clark University in Worcester, MA. She received her B.A. in Psychology from Wesleyan University (Connecticut); her Ph.D. in clinical psychology and her M.S. in Psychology from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Dr. Goldberg also completed a clinical psychology internship at Yale Medical School. Her research has examined the transition to parenthood in diverse families, including lesbian-parent families and adoptive-parent families. In particular, her work has focused on how families’ relationships and identities change across the transition to parenthood, and how gender and sexual orientation figure into individuals’ adjustment and experience of parenthood. In addition, she has also studied the experiences of adults raised by lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. She has received funding from the American Psychological Association, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Williams Institute, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.

The full study can be read at Clark University.

Those places that are supportive of the LGBT Community typically have the healthier LGBT populations. This is something that has been known for some time. Many of the social, mental and physical ills that the anti-LGBT people hold up as proof of how bad the LGBT Community is tend to ignore that social stigma causes major health problems and that these fold back into the Community as a whole.

Melanie Nathan- Feb 11-2011

The European Union may well be taking on the nuance of a federation – similar to the United States – where Countries are in essence similar to the separate states of the USA; and not, given the free movement between countries, problems are bound to follow same-sex couples, as the gendre  civil union, lags marriage. Most importantly this is about protecting children.

The European Commission has already announced in the Stockholm Action Plan a legislative proposal “on mutual recognition of the effects of certain civil status documents (e.g. relating to birth, affiliation, adoption, name)” aimed at eliminating barriers to the recognition of legal acts in the European Union.

Here is a story illustrating the problem -

A Finnish lesbian lives in Paris, France, with her French partner. The couple is registered under a French PACS (pacte civil de solidarité, a type of registered partnership.

They have two children born in Paris, who hold Finnish nationality.  The Finnish women is the children’s only parent since France does not recognise her French partner as the second parent. The couple are both registered as legal guardians of their children until they turn 18 years old.

However, the legal guardianship does not entitle the children to inherit, use of last name, entitlement to French citizenship – pursuant to rights that may otherwise have flowed from the second (French) parent.

Horrifically, if the biological mother dies while the children are under 18, the guardianship of the unrecognized second parent will terminate  automatically. (mmm what’s the point?) In that case, the children would be considered orphans. A judge would then decide whether or not the second parent could adopt them. Guardianship also terminates if the mothers separate thereby impacting custody and visitation for the second parent; as well as the mutual duty of support toward the children.

In this case ILGA Europe reports that: “the couple has looked into moving to Finland, where second parent adoption is possible for same-sex couples. Finnish law even permits second-parent adoption for couples living abroad if one of the parents or the children holds a Finnish citizenship, and if adoption is not possible in the country of residence. But the Finnish Civil Registry expressly refused in March 2010 to  recognize the French PACS when the couple requested them to acknowledge it. Therefore the request of adoption by the second parent was dismissed by the Helsinki Court of Justice (Helsingin käräjäoikeus) in December 2010.”

This leaves the couple and their two children in uncertainty.

ILGA notes given the clear discrimination and lack of parity to marriage by heterosexual couples, :- “So the European Union has to come forward with these measures urgently and to ensure that these apply without discriminations based on sexual orientation, including to same-sex second parents, to overcome situations similar to this present case.”

http://lezgetreal.com/2011/02/what-does-u-s-deployment-of-ugandan-mercenary-troops-mean-to-gay-u-s-a/
By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

======================================================================================

Related articles

• European Union a Tangle for Same-Sex Couples (gayrights.change.org)

Still, Florida Governor Rick Scott said recently“I believe that adoption should be by a married couple.” He also believes in the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of people to commit medicare fraud.

Correction:

Gill was the only one who was granted the adoption. His unmarried husband was not. Officially, Gill is the father, but honestly, both are the parents.

Source

Melanie Nathan – Jan 16 -2011.

What a great acknowledgment that Lesbian films embracing reality, from bed death to affairs, to confusion to sperm donors to children can actually captivate interest from talent such as Bening enough to bring a slice of America to the big screen. AND HEY BY THE WAY hellooooo the elephant in  the room…  – that couple in that movie have no Federal Rights – they are missing 1,138 rights that straight couples have.

As an activist what a shame that Bening did not refer to equality and BEG on behalf of the LGBT community for a repeal of the Defense of marriage Act, DOMA.

Her speech indeed referred to “About two women who are deeply in love trying to keep their family together,  Juliane Moore my partner- made it all possible…. It was a labor of love.”

So all we can do as lesbians living as second class citizens is to hope that there will be more brave actors who normalize our de facto existence and  hopefully find a way to embrace the realities of our de jure pain, at any given opportunity.

UPDATE : – Best Screenplay – goes  to Erin Sorkin Social Network and NOT the lesbian movie okay okay….

In Solidarity,

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles

• Live Blogging the 2011 Golden Globes (moviefone.com)

Melanie Nathan ; Dec 26-2010;  A legal ruling in the Jerusalem Family Court on Thursday sets the Holy Land ahead of many a foreign  jurisdiction when it comes to gay and lesbian second parent adoptions.  Although a favorable ruling was reached in the precedent setting case, the gnawing question is whether or not the law will stand, given a slight variation of facts and the possibility of a conservative Judge, in future cases.   What is needed to secure a precedent setting case such as this is actual legislated law.

LezGetReal followed the story of  the  gay Jerusalem resident Dan Goldberg,  biological father of twins born to a surrogate mother in India.

Israel Forges Innovative Ways for Gay & Lesbian Couples to Tackle Religious Law (lezgetreal.com)

Goldberg was denied entry to Israel with his new born babies,   and so he and his partner were forced to live in a Mumbai hotel for months after the babies were born, because Jerusalem Family Court Judge Philip Marcus initially refused to authorize a standard paternity test to determine if he was the biological father of the children.

Fighting his way through the system and with influential press coverage, the Goldberg case has made precedent setting law in Israel, by now allowing for the second parent adoption by Goldberg’s partner.

However attorney Irit Rosenblum has noted that,  “This precedent emphasizes a much bigger issue in Israel: that such decisions are based on the attitudes of certain judges and not on the rule of law.”

Approximately one  year ago, the father asked to allow his partner to adopt the child.  The two men went through the standard adoption process – including a review from a social worker, who assessed the partner to be a fit parent and submitted a positive recommendation to the Jerusalem Family Court.

“This is a big step for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in Israel,” commented lawyer Irit Rosenblum, who we have mentioned on LGR before, executive director of New Family, an organization that champions the rights of Israelis to marry and build families outside the traditional system. “However, there is still a long road to the desired recognition, since each issue pertaining to gay rights is decided by the courts, and not by the legislature.

“This was a decision that was made by the same court regarding the rights of gay couples,” said Rosenblum, adding “it is true that the minute one judge breaks through and is brave enough to make a decision on such issues, then other judges will come forward, too, but it’s just not enough. These basic rights must be set in law to ensure that everyone can enjoy them.”

In 2007, the Supreme Court in Israel allowed two men to jointly adopt a child that was not related to either of them.

In the USA, second parent adoption is treated differently in different States and there is no universal adaptation nationwide. Recently the Supreme Court in North Carolina decided that a second parent adoption was null and avoid( Supreme Court NC Rules State Senator’s 2nd Parent Adoption Null & Void (lezgetreal.com)) stripping a viable method in NC,  that gays and lesbians parents still rely on around the USA.   This case could throw all second parent adoptions into turmoil, depending on future appeals.

Source http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=200166

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

09/10/2010- by Natasia Langfelder

Iron Chef Cat Cora opened up to People magazine about how her partner and her children went about having their four children. Cat and her partner, Jennifer, used the same sperm donor, fertilized eggs in vitro and then got the other one’s egg implanted in her womb. They also have another child who they aren’t sure which one is the ‘biological’ mom. Which is fine with them for now. There is also one more kid in there, but I can’t keep track. Four is too many for me. I think they are all boys too, which must keep Cat and Jennifer really busy. On a more serious note, Cat also describes how painful the IVF process was; especially when she suffered a miscarriage:

The “shots and shifting hormones” of IVF proved challenging for both women, and Cora reveals she even suffered a miscarriage along the way. “The first three days of the pregnancy were euphoric … This little embryo was growing,” she recalls. “Then I lost the baby. I cried for a week.”

Starting over from scratch “was devastating” and “traumatizing,” but Cora says it ultimately gave her a perspective she wouldn’t have otherwise had. “I honestly think it’s a good thing I got pregnant on the second try.”

So sad. But luckily, Cat was able to get pregnant again. Cat also says that four is the perfect amount of children for her and Jennifer:

“We knew we wanted to have four kids,” Cora explains, “She didn’t want to wait, and she got pregnant quickly. After she did, we decided I shouldn’t wait … It would be easier to raise two young babies together, almost as twins. Jennifer could breastfeed for me when I was on the road.”

She even admits that it was a rocky road for the two mothers in terms of their relationship, when Cat went back to work four weeks after their two sons were born. Thankfully, the two were able to salvage their relationship and keep their loving family intact.

Cat also throws in a political point, when she makes sure that People knows how difficult it is for LGBT couples to ensure that both parents are legally considered to be parents.

“As a same-sex couple, we had to go back and legally adopt them,” she points out. “Even though Nash was her biological son, Jennifer had to adopt him. Same with me and Caje.”

Adding that “there were lots of papers to file and lots of legal expenses,” Cora feels it’s a process that needs to be simplified. “Hopefully someday same-sex couples won’t have to go through all of that,” she adds.

I think it’s great that Cat Cora is opening up to People about what lesbian mom’s go through and how they feel about the process. She doesn’t have to put her life out there and use it to educate people, but she is. I, as a potential future lesbian mom, really appreciate that. Especially since the Southern Chef is loved by people who wouldn’t generally be exposed to the real side of LGBT family life. So go on with your bad self, Cat!

You can read the interview in it’s entirety HERE

Related articles by Zemanta

• Angelina Jolie is Not Going to Force Shiloh to be Pretty Princess Because the Media Says So(lezgetreal.com)
• Director Gabrielle Lindau Brings Lesbian Showers to the Big Screen (lezgetreal.com)
• Jennifer Aniston on Cougar Town; Might Play Lesbian Pussycat (lezgetreal.com)

“Lets have kids  dear!”

Posted by Melanie Nathan

Choosing Children

08.26.10

A letter from Kate Kendell:-

Twenty-five years ago, I was 25 years old and just starting law school at the University of Utah. I was parenting my daughter Emily, who was 4 years old with her mom, and my former partner, Lori. While it was uncommon for LGBT friends in our circle to be planning for parenthood, it did not occur to Lori or me that we were at the forefront of what would be termed the “gayby boom.”

Lori had been a single parent raising the then 1-year-old Emily when we met. We were just living our lives unaware of a sea-change that was just beginning when it came to issues of parenting and our community. While we were living that life, Academy Award-winning filmmaker Deborah “Chas” Chasnoff and her then life and work partner, Kim Klausner, were in the midst of writing, producing, and directing their groundbreaking film documenting this burgeoning movement. Choosing Children captured on celluloid the choice a growing number of lesbians and gay men were making, a choice that seemed both counter-intuitive and revolutionary: to become parents.

Up until this generation, most LGBT folks were parents because they had been in earlier heterosexual marriages or relationships and then divorced and come out, or vice-versa. In doing so many of them faced hostility from family and former spouses and countless numbers lost or gave up any hope for custody of their children.

Beginning in the early 1980s, a new kind of parenting began emerging. Led by lesbians, often in biological partnership with gay men, women began choosing to have children as lesbian-identified parents. Now, 25 short years later, the groundbreaking idea that lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgender folks can also be parents seems, well, not so groundbreaking. In fact, it is now so commonplace that doing so is viewed by some in our community as assimilationist and pedestrian. Gotta love the march of progress.

But of course, what the fight for the right to be both LGBT and a parent is really about is the right to live a fulfilled and authentic life according to what gives joy and satisfaction to each of us. And in 1985 becoming a parent often meant rejection from both one’s family of origin and one’s chosen family in the lesbian or gay community. It also meant maintaining a pretense of heterosexuality or absolute legal vulnerability because almost every state prohibited openly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from adopting, and few if any states provided any parental protections. It was a time of very little community or institutional support for you as a parent or for your child as the son or daughter of a queer parent.

Emily will be 30 next year. She is smart, lovely, creative, open-hearted, and generous. I can hardly believe I have a daughter who is near 30 years old. But then I also can hardly believe the progress we have made in the short time my oldest has been alive. Seeing Choosing Children again was inspiring for many reasons but most of all, it made me really stop and appreciate how far we have come and how much we owe those who blazed this trail uncertain of the terrain ahead of them. Filmmakers Chas and Kim, the parents featured in the film, our own founder Donna Hitchens—who provided legal expertise and commentary—did not intend to be pioneers, but they were, and we are all much better off because of the choices they made.

So please join us for the upcoming Choosing Children 25th Anniversary Screening and Reception, a film that is now a crucial and transformative story of our movement. Our evening together promises to be a celebration of how far we have come and a promise to not end our quest until every family is valued and safe.

Sincerely,

Kate Kendell

Choosing Children 25th Anniversary Screening and Reception

Groundbreaking Film Exploring the First Generation of LGBT Parents Celebrates 25th Anniversary

Related articles by Zemanta

• Groundbreaking Film Exploring the First Generation of LGBT Parents Celebrates 25th Anniversary(lezgetreal.com)
• Groundbreaking Film Exploring the First Generation of LGBT Parents Celebrates 25th Anniversary(pinkbananaworld.com)
• Contacting My Sperm Donor – I Am A Kid who is All Right! (lezgetreal.com)

08/06/2010- by Natasia Langfelder

Angelina Jolie is constantly criticized for “forcing” daughter Shiloh to “dress like a boy” and thus turning her into a disgusting manly lesbo. Angelina has defended Shiloh in the past and now the philanthropic lady is begginning to sound a littled pissed off. She said in an interview while doing the press rounds for her action film, Salt:

“I think people think kids should be a certain way, but I feel they should wear what they feel like wearing and they should express themselves. Shiloh cried one night and said, ‘Please cut my hair off. I don’t want to have long hair.’ I’m not going to leave it long just because somebody thinks I should…I have a very strong-willed four-year-old girl who tells me what she wants to wear and I let her be who she is.

 I agree with her and not just because I’m a lesbian who loves gender bending women. It’s important to let children be who they are, it’s heartbreaking to hear stories of people who have grown up trying to fit into a mold to make their parents happy. While this is common among LGBT individuals, it is also prevalent in the straight community, like the athlete who wants to impress his dad, the solider who joined the fight because he has a family history of it, the woman who married within her religion to make her mom happy. Parents shouldn’t force their child into a mold, it usually ends in disaster.

Also, our culture of dressing little girls in frills and pink sparkles is getting out of control. Girls are sexualized as soon as they pop out of the womb and are told they need to be beautiful fashion plates before they can walk. They need to be outfitted with heels and wearing designer diapers. It’s disgusting and for once Angelina is a bastion of sanity.

Although I did not report on it, earlier this week, Angelina was criticized for letting her son, Pax, get a mani/pedi. Basically, I like Angie better than ever before. Go on with your bad self, girl. I hope you adopt 100 more babies and seed them throughout the world to help people learn to become more tolerant.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Angelina Says Shiloh is Like Her; Discusses Gender Identity (lezgetreal.com)
• The Real L Word Recap: Episode 7 (lezgetreal.com)
• Megan Fox Got Married (lezgetreal.com)

For more on what you can do to aid the fight for LGBT rights please visit www.aclu.org.

Julie Phineas is a work at home mom of 2 who lives in Southern California. You can find out more about her online by visiting her website at www.juliephineas.com.
]]> http://lezgetreal.com/2010/05/lesbian-couple-stands-for-second-parent-adoption-laws/feed/ 0 http://lezgetreal.com/2010/05/rachel-maddow-explains-and-exposes-just-why-rekers-case-is-so-important/ http://lezgetreal.com/2010/05/rachel-maddow-explains-and-exposes-just-why-rekers-case-is-so-important/#comments Sat, 08 May 2010 07:28:44 +0000 Lez Get Real http://lezgetreal.com/?p=33062

Image via Wikipedia

05-08-10  Melanie Nathan

Rachel Maddow, on her MSNBC show tells the Rekers story in clear and express terms while exposing  a letter sent by George Rekers to the thousands of  schools under the guise of misleading letter head (organization) informing requesting that school children be told that if they are gay they can be cured and that they were not born gay. Two weeks later Rekers takes off on a vacation with a very young Rentboy, Lucien, whom he paid $75 per day for sexual services fully delineated in a written contract between Rekers and Lucien  (Jo-Vani Roman.)

Maddows asserts that the importance of the story lies in the fact that Rekers has made a career specifically  by causing extreme harm to gay people and their families, making thousands of dollars and worse yet – He is still doing it!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

NARTH Responds to the
Recent Media Coverage of Dr. George Rekers

May 6, 2010 — The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a professional scientific organization with hundreds of academic, research, and clinical members dedicated to assisting individuals dealing with unwanted homosexual attractions. While NARTH is focused on the science of homosexual attraction, personal controversies often deepen the existing cultural divide on this issue. Such is the case in the recent news stories concerning one of our members, Dr. George Rekers.

NARTH takes seriously the accusations that have been made, and we are currently attempting to understand the details behind these press reports. We are always saddened when this type of controversy impacts the lives of individuals, and we urge all parties to allow a respectful and thorough investigation to take place.

At this difficult time for the families and individuals involved, we extend our sympathies. We also wish to reiterate our traditional position that these personal controversies do not change the scientific data, nor do they detract from the important work of NARTH.

NARTH continues to support scientific research, and to value client autonomy, client self-determination and client diversity.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Advocate Locates Lucien – Did Reker Play with Boy Toy? (lezgetreal.com)
• Rekers: ‘I am not gay and never have been’ (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Rekers Begs Rentboy to Stop Interviews – Finally the Full Monty (lezgetreal.com)

5-7-10 by Melanie Nathan

The name Rekers, has been bouncing from blogger to blogger, with Miami New Times at the helm of the expose of the beast who ‘would separate gay families.”  George Alan Rekers, a voracious anti-gay ex-gay, has  been one of the most significant Piranhas to helm the concocted ex-gay industry, whose prime conscious motive has been to make money and (perhaps) unconscious motive to hide and mask his hatred for himself and G-d, behind lies and contrived thesis.

Rekers was caught courting a Rent-Boy- now hounded, named and talking, at an airport after returning from a vacation to sleazy hotels in Europe, with his paid escort.

Bloggers from Joe, (Joe-My-God)  to Andy Towle to Unzipped have been following the beat of the Miami New Times, which first exposed the story, amidst a controversial bewilderment rendering speculation of ‘ who, what and how did they’s'  get the  tell-tale picture and story.

Then came the hunt for Rentboy and successfully found by Unzipped, who dropped the story mid-talk with Jo-Vanni Roman, (Lucien) leaving his readers holding limp wrist beside keyboard:…”more later” as the saying goes.. but none came and readers were pissed.

So Joe-My-God got the ultimate scoop just today in the weeny hours.  Actually it was relatively easy to contact Jo-Vanni, after he was named. I too made contact and reached out – but seems he wanted to talk to the more famous and the  boys!

This all culminated with only two BLOGS now worth reading, present company excluded of course.  Firstly I name TWO – Truth Wins Out- which has a full rendition of Rekers hate filled lies that have cost the LGBT family community so much, including references to PDF file Judgment from the Judge in In Re Gill, the Florida adoption case. TWO exposes the indulgent industry and the enormous amount of money this Blob made at our expense. It is all a must read.  It makes me wonder who the real prostitute is in this scenario. The one who sells his body or the one who sold his soul?

Then the other is Joe-My-God who had a 90 minute interview with the young man in the early hours of this morning. Another must read.

Joe’ s take  “Let’s open by saying that this kid is no dim bulb. I found him frank, sharp, funny, and quite forthcoming to all my questions. And I had a lot. But I also must say Jo-Vanni is almost painfully naive about some things, as you’ll see.

“Since the story broke on Tuesday, we’ve all seen George Rekers’ increasingly desperate attempts to deny the sexual aspect of their trip or that he even met Jo-Vanni on Rentboy.com in the first place. They’ve spoken on the phone once since then, during which Jo-Vanni angrily confronted Rekers about his anti-gay work with the Family Research Council. “I just stay in the background” was Rekers’ limp defense. The call ended with Rekers begging Jo-Vanni to refuse future interview requests.” (Joe)

Tonight we may see the first of a big national media explosion.  While the bloggers have been busy- the mainstream media and cable TV have been reticent, but now that our ‘Brothers in Blogging’ have done the work, Anderson Cooper is ready. This is all good- and shows the power of blogging and how often we can fuel mainstream.

J-Vanni told told Joe, that  that  a gay reporter was about to interview him   and Joe says that is indeed Anderson Cooper, whose office has been calling Jo-Vanni. So this morning CNN’s Randi Kaye will meet Jo-Vanni at a Fort Lauderdale hotel for an on-camera (but probably silhouetted) interview. And there Jo-Vanni says he will hand over the confidentiality agreement signed by himself and Dr. George Rekers. “You know, I’d love to see that contract if you wouldn’t mind faxing or emailing a photo of it to me,” I said innocently. Jo-Vanni laughed and declined. Like I said, naive perhaps, but not dumb”

The power of bloggers – must be further honed to keep this story alive until we bring this anti-gay hate group – ex-gays out of the Courts and Bookstores.  Let them preach to their own kind, but take heed – if the appear at any door to any courtroom involving an adoption or a gay rights issue, we will be there to track them until we bring each one of their lying butts down.  This story cannot go away – so fair minded and hard working passionate Brothers and Sisters in Blogging and News – keep the focus and Jolly well done!

UPDATE – Jim Burroway BOX TURTLE gets Anderson Cooper leaked interview  on site http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/07/22407#comment-68074

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• George ‘Rentboy’ Rekers: ‘I Am Not Gay and Never Have Been’ (towleroad.com)
• Here’s George Alan Rekers’ Favorite Escort Service (queerty.com)
• Rent Boy: George Alan Rekers is a Homosexual who Enjoys Body Rubs in the Nude (towleroad.com)
• The Worst Thing About Prostitute-Loving George Alan Rekers? He’s Cheap (queerty.com)
• The Advocate Locates Lucien – Did Reker Play with Boy Toy? (lezgetreal.com)
• Over Speakerphone, George Rekers Tries to Silence ‘Rent Boy’ (towleroad.com)
• George Rekers is Gay, Says Escort (advocate.com)
• The Case for Talking to LEzgetREAL -Advocate Locates Lucien – talking to Unzipped and What about Joe (pinkbananaworld.com)
• PHOTOS: Meet Jo-vanni Roman, Escort to America’s Leading Hypocritical Bigot George Alan Rekers (queerty.com)

From: The Honorable Pete Stark

via Rep. Tammy Baldwin.

Posted by Melanie Nathan 3-9-10. Every Child Deserves a Family: A Congressional Briefing on efforts to end discriminatory policies that close homes to foster children by prohibiting and restricting adoption and foster placements by LGBT families and unmarried couples.

There are approximately 125,000 foster children waiting to be adopted. With only 50,000 adoptions each year, there is a clear shortage of adoptive parents.  The result is that children, especially minority and special needs children, languish in care and bounce from placement to placement. The 25,000 youth who never find a permanent family and “age out” of the system each year are more likely than nearly any other group to become homeless, incarcerated, or suffer with mental illness or substance abuse.

Despite the need for more adoptive and permanent foster homes, some states have enacted discriminatory bans that prohibit children from being placed with qualified parents due to the parent’s sexual orientation or marital status.  The result is less children being adopted and more children bouncing around the foster care system with no permanency and no security.  In some cases these bans have resulted in a grandparent having to go through costly litigation in order to care for their own kin who are in foster care.

LGBT Caucus – invites you to a briefing to learn more about this issue and what Congress can do to fix the situation.

Date: Thursday March 11th
Time: 1:30-3:00
Location: H-137
The Hill.

Panelists will include:
•    Nakea Page and Kendra Langley- Foster Care Alumni will discuss their experiences in the child welfare system and “aging out” of the system without a family;
•    Uma Ahluwalia-Director of Montgomery County Maryland’s Department of Health and Human Services will discuss the benefits of opening as many adoptive homes as possible to foster children;
•    Charlotte Patterson- Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia will discuss 30 years of research on LGBT parenting and adoption;
•    Gary Gates- Senior Research Fellow at the Williams Institute will discuss research on the fiscal impact of banning and restricting LGBT adoption and foster parenting;
•    Leslie Cooper- Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU will discuss ongoing litigation at the state level to overturn discriminatory adoption bans;
•    Martin Gill- Foster parent engaged in litigation to be able to adopt two brothers he and his partner have been fostering since 2004.

If you have any questions, please contact Jeff Hild  jeff.hild@mail.house.gov.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Another Judge Calls Florida Anti-Gay Adoption Law Unconstitutional, Grants Lesbian Couple Baby Boy (lezgetreal.com)
• Rep. Pete Stark Introduces Anti-Discrimination Adoption Bill (towleroad.com)

Adoptive parents, Oren Adar and Mickey Ray Smith, who now live in San Diego, were living in Connecticut when they obtained an emergency adoption decree in New York state court to adopt the baby who was born in Shreveport, La. in 2005. The baby’s mother had transferred him to Adar and Smith’s care shortly after the boy’s birth.

A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the state of Louisiana to issue an amended birth certificate for the child of the men stating that the State of Louisiana is ordered to  put the names of both fathers on the new certificate.

The ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a 2008 ruling by US District Court Judge Jay Zainey.  He ordered the Louisiana Office of Public Health and Vital Records and registrar Darlene W Smith,  who had overtly discriminated against the parents, to supply an amended birth certificate for the boy that shows Adar and Smith as his parents, Courthouse News Service reports

Lambda Legal, a national civil rights organization based in Los Angeles, represented Adar and Smith sued on behalf of the couple in October 2007, saying Louisiana Vital Records Registrar Darlene Smith violated the U.S. Constitution in denying them an accurate birth certificate, which threatened the boy’s enrollment in a health care plan and treated him like a second-class citizen.

Clearly showing an aversion to the fact that the boy had two fathers, Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, appealed the Zainey decision, arguing that state law wouldn’t have allowed such an adoption in the first place. The Vital Records office claimed that it would have supplied a birth certificate if just one of the parents had been listed in the New York record as adopting the boy.  This shows the Office of vital records attempting to assert its own ideas as to

Adar and Smith are the adoptive parents under Louisiana law, wrote Judge Jacques Wiener Jr. for the panel of three,  because the state “owes full faith and credit to the New York adoption decree that declares [the infant] to be the adopted child of Adar and Smith.” Because New York law allows adoption by unmarried couples, Louisiana had to follow those rules.  The registrar have the discretion to refuse to make a new, correct birth certificate for a Louisiana-born child,  when the New York adoption decree “indisputably satisfies” Louisiana requirements.

Marjorie Esman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, called Caldwell’s decision to fight the birth certificate request discriminatory.

“It was shameful that Attorney General Caldwell took such extreme measures to deny a small child a proper birth certificate simply because he didn’t like the boy’s parents,” said Esman, in a statement. “Hopefully this decision will make him think twice before wasting taxpayer money to defend his anti-gay activism.”

PICTURE;  Kenneth D. Upton, Jr. , Supervising Senior Staff Attorney

“We’re pleased the court agrees that it’s wrong to punish children just because the Registrar doesn’t like their parents.”

By Melanie Nathan.
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gay Adoptive Parents Win Birth Certificate Case in Louisiana (towleroad.com)
• Louisiana Court Ruling: Both Adoptive Dads Get Their Names On Birth Certificate (joemygod.blogspot.com)

The state government of Sydney, Australia had been considering legislation that would make it possible for the LGBT community to adopt children. There was a parliamential inquiry into the matter that suggested allowing gay adoption would benefit the Australian State of New South Wales, of which Sydney is a part of. Unfortunately the legislation was shot down.

The Minister of Community Services, Linda Burney, has said that the reason the ban was upheld is because, “”There are very deeply held, divergent views on this issue and that is why a decision on this matter will not be taken at this stage.” [The Sydney Morning Herald]

Advocacy groups for same sex marriage in Australia are said to be outraged. Given the flimsy excuse for rejecting the measure, this is not surprising. There are always strongly held beliefs on both sides of any civil rights argument and the reason given by Burney does not address the discrimination faced by Australia’s same-sex couples.  

 So having been challenged by the admin of Cath -Pews I am providing a cryptic analysis based of one such article promoted by Cath Pews.   I have provided a demarcation between the article wording and my comments as can be seen from ITALIC BOLD = CATH-PEWS and REGULAR= Melanie.

 ANDERSON:-   ARTICLE :_
How to Make the Case for Marriage ,
(Using Non-religious Language)  
By Mary Jo Anderson

 Whether we like it or not, secularism is the dominant mode of public discourse today. Even those we encounter who are not “anti-faith” often place a high value on their understanding of “separation of church and state.”  Catholics must therefore be prepared to support moral positions without recourse to Scripture or religious vocabulary. That is an enormous challenge to Catholics who want to defend and preserve marriage as the only healthy model for an orderly society.  Before we go any further, we should make it clear that using secular terms to make the case for marriage in secular terms in no way suppresses or denies the faith. While it does omit a higher dimension of marriage, the secular case is effective because all truth—including the truth about men and women, marriage and family—is God’s truth. 

 MELANIE – Anderson, the Author provides an excuse and subversive means to hide the intention of faith behind overt secular language. This article is all but a ruse a desperate attempt to provide secular legitimacy to a faith based argument.  You cannot hide behind the intention! Simply ridiculous!

 ANDERSON – As such, it has an internal coherence that is part of the created order. One need not credit God with the physical laws of nature, such as gravity, to know that gravity works. Where the physical laws are violated, breakdown occurs. The same goes for the moral realm: A violation of God’s moral order brings chaos in human relationships. The evidence of that chaos is the source of the daily headlines and the nightly news broadcasts. When people of faith make the case for marriage using this kind of evidence, it is less likely to be perceived as “imposing religion.”

 MELANIE:-  This is a flagrant misrepresentation, as is the entire surreptitious intent of this article-  (A Catholic Virtue – to be manipulative and furtive? Anderson is providing the readers a way to Circumvent the truth of their own assertions by trying to slip it into secular form; a clear case of scape-goating?  How do we know that the church itself is not to blame for the depravity on earth?  After all the church has a violent history, borne through war for conversion!

ANDERSON   There is a secular argument for preserving natural marriage as the only legal definition of marriage and the one model of family life deserving of tax relief. The major building blocks are these:

1.             Nations that fail to form families suffer grave consequences, including loss of workers, loss of tax base, and decline in human ingenuity and productivity

MELANIE :-  “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”   as my beloved granny Rose would say: Firstly there are an ever increasing amount of Gay families out there.  In the US and abroad who are contributing to society in a big way.   The new census  2010, may reveal these numbers.  Let me give you my family as one itsy bitsy example and as a metaphor for all of us:-

I am a lesbian. I married spouse under California Law. We have been together for almost 10 years.  

I went to University for many years and have law degrees, which I use in my Conflict Resolution and Mediation practice, which I established over ten years ago.  I used to practice law and decided I would prefer to resolve conflict through mediation.  I function as any other American who owns a business.  The fact that my spouse is of the same sex has zero impact on my productivity or functionality.   In fact I was recently appointed by our County Board of Supervisors as a Commissioner on the County Human Rights Commission.  I serve on the Board as Vice President of A Fair Housing Group and volunteer in our congregation on social justice issues. I volunteer in the Courts to mediate family law matters for people who cannot afford attorneys.  I advocate in DC for equality. I would say about 90% of my free time is devoted to volunteer or pro bono work.   

My spouse teaches Hebrew language to children and adults; as well as bible studies.  She has   almost complete a Masters in Education.  She is brilliant and spends much of her free time with our children.  Our four year old has never had a babysitter because one of us is with the kids at all times.

In fact your argument is so false it makes an argument for the fact that we NEED EQUALITY.  You see we do not get to file Federal tax returns together and so everything costs us more. We have no Federal government benefits.   Your argument highlights that gay families are discriminated (in fact your thesis even calls for the discrimination …”no tax relief..”) against because within the realm of our productivity we are denied the  benefits that you get as a result of your productivity = unequal!   Your productivity does not endure as a result of your sex nor that of your spouse; my production does not occur as a result of my sex or the fact that my spouse is of the same sex.   The government takes our tax money- but as separate and not as joint, while we function as fiscally joint. Your argument has no foundation and simply makes no sense.

We have two daughters.  One was adopted from an orphanage in Vietnam as an infant, suffering from malnutrition and scabies; and is now a thriving all A’s scholar, budding young leader, who loves to help those less fortunate than herself.  She has great talent and will certainly be a productive and well adjusted adult. She will go to University, get a degree, help others, continue to volunteer for our congregation which focuses on helping the needy.  Just last week her class organized a lunch for homeless people in the area. This is not just a one- time event.   

My second daughter was conceived through donor sperm and Artificial Insemination.  She is four now and very smart. We were able to choose sperm of a genius and so have contributed to the population. Who knows maybe our daughter will be President of this Country. Who knows maybe our daughter will be the one to find a cure for diabetes, cancer, aids. Point is – we as a family have conscientiously and decidedly contributed to the increase of population and done so in a responsible fashion.

The adoption costs us about $35,000 and the insemination cost us about $8,000.  So you can see by choosing our modes of ‘birth” if you will, we have contributed to the economy.  We have saved a child from a difficult life and turned it into a situation where she will be ready to give to society in a big way. We pay for childcare, we pay for extra -activities, we pay for clothes, for food

IN SUM ,  Anderson  re my family:

1. We have added to human ingenuity;
2. We provide tax base plus more than we ought to if we had equality;
3.We are an extraordinarily productive family and contribute to our economy in a big way;
4. There are hundreds of thousands of other families like us- maybe millions;
5. If we had equal rights then we would have an opportunity to have more contributing gay families – and increase productivity.    

Conclusion – This  Anderson Argument is DOA!

ANDERSON:-  2. The question is not about denying individual rights but about promoting the good of the whole society.

MELANIE:- This is the argument that I just cannot understand. Most Pedophiles are straight white men.  Most incest occurs via straight fathers raping their children.  The US divorce rate is high;   we all know and easily condoned by Churches – some of which choose annulment. The latter simply denies the marriage ever took place even though there are children. Is that not destructive on society and morality?  

This particular statement made me laugh because of the contradiction in terms.  Ms. Anderson   we will be promoting the good of society if we had equal rights.  How can you on any level think that by denying equality society will improve? (Maybe we ought to bring Jesus in here – lest I forget this is a secular argument.)   Inequality leads to hate, validates inequities and injustice on a secular level. The scales are tipped. People suffer terrible hardship, such as Shirley Tan who highlights the plight of all  binational gay couples.   You tube and hear her testimony.

The question IS about denying rights and in doing so you are promoting an unequal society.  Argument DOA.

ANDERSON:-  3. Marriage and family provide benefits to society by producing, raising, and educating the next generation.

MELANIE:- Gay and lesbian families are in no way deterred in this function. We are already doing this and having equal rights and benefits will only strengthen our ability to be more even productive. Oh yes… Britney Spears marrying for 24 hours is productive; reality shows making a mockery of marriage where you line up bachelors and pretend to fall in love for TV exposure is a fine way to honor marriage and maintain its sanctity.  I could go on…. Let us add this to our secular argument.   Anderson Argument DOA.

ANDERSON:-  4. A strong family life offers the benefits of mental and emotional health.

MELANIE : Gay and lesbian families are in no way deterred in this function. We are already doing this and having equal benefits and rights will only strengthen our health.  Studies have been done to show how stressful it can be not to have equal rights.   

What part of my family life is not strong?  What position is Ms. Anderson in to make that assumption or judgment unless based on falsehood.  Would you like testimonials from my daughter’s school, from my clergy?  From my neighbors, from the homeless guys we fed yesterday?  Are you thinking my kids will turn out to be criminals? Are you presuming that my emotional and mental State is not in good order?  Simply ludicrous.  I can list the names of professionals, judges, politicians, moms, teachers, doctors, scientists, professors who are openly gay and who offer perfect emotional and mental health in living their lives at home and in society.  Who are you using as your example the ‘straight’ Senator with a straight marriage who played tootsie- footsie under the toilet door with a male prostitute?

 It is not possible with the amount of parental involvement and love we provide, to imagine that my home is anything but emotionally stable.  I am  not in need of super nanny and nor do I need a reality show.    There are studies showing that gay parents are of a high caliber and that we provide good and safe homes for our kids. . There are many millions of emotionally imbalanced straight families.  What about the woman, Smith who drove her kids into a pond and drowned them?   The mother who drowned five kids in the bath tub?  The suicides stemming from military returning home from WAR? What about the child abuse day to day; the trash who loose their kids in the night to suspect circumstances? You only have to watch Nancy Grace’s show to see that my life and that of hundreds of thousands of gay families have had nothing to do with the sicko’s in this society.  Straight America is doing fine in its own destruction without gay help or influence. I challenge you to find one gay family convicted of murder.   Anderson argument = DOA

ANDERSON:-  5. These blocks build on the foundation of the common good: shared commitment to a society ordered to the good of the most members.   No Marriage, No Civilization

MELANIE:- Exactly and thanks for making my case and RESTING  MY CASE FOR ME-  THANKS MARY JO ANDERSON – not only have you failed to make your secular argument but you have revealed a furtive attempt to avoid the faith based argument AND  you have successfully made the argument for WHY GAY MARRIAGE EQUALITY WILL ACTUALLY ENHANCE SOCIETY.  

  Yeah – at last We are in agreement marriage – Civilization – Give everyone the right to marriage one person of their choice regardless of sexual identity. This secular argument, albeit furtive,  works after all. It works for our equality and not against it.  So maybe Ms. Anderson your attempts have backfired and you should go back to your religious argument. In truth the religious argument is the only one that may hold any relevance at all and to that end I say thank G-d for the separation of Church and State.

In the words of Anderson per an article on credentials for Bishops “Our bishops must foster authentic marriage and family life. In the heart of the family the dignity of the human person is taught and the future is nurtured. Healthy families are the source of a moral people, ethical citizens, and vocations,” she concluded. ”

In light of this comment Ms. Anderson how hypocritical is it of you to argue against marriage for all G-d’s flock?

  Mary Jo Anderson :-  

By Blogger, Melanie Nathan, contact
nathan@privatecourts.com /
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com