Bill to Ban GOP Adoptions Opens Eyes (Madison Pink-o Thinks It's Real!)

Madison.com ^ | March 2, 2006 | John Nichols

[Diana in Wisconsin]

What blatant mis-information! Nichols treats this issue as if it's real legislation going forward!!

What a fear-mongering jerk. What an anti-hetero.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Check it out! Nichols writes an editorial as if this is valid legislation! Yeesh!

[xcamel]

This jerk needs to be subjected to a "valid recall" and subsequent expulsion.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

With that logic, there should be no restrictions whatsoever. Just letter any old pervert adopt children.

[andyk]

Since Hood's homophobic legislation is not backed by evidence...

LOL, I thought this was a news article until I got to this part...

[Temple Owl]

Okay, Mom and I can't adopt any more kids. Ping

[lowbridge]

bump

[Holly_P]

The conservative Cincinnati Enquirer agreed.

Too bad the "conservative" Cincinnati Enquirer won't allow any of their articles to be posted here.

[Holly_P]

What a maroon!

[Holly_P]

PING

Whaddu think?

[HitmanLV]

I think that a ban on gays adopting children will play out as a losing proposition for those backing the ban.

[aberaussie]

Hagan has no co-sponsors for his bill at this point, a circumstance that may have something to do with the fact that the legislation has been proposed, as he says, with "tongue planted firmly in cheek."

[weaver]

A satirical flight of fancy, but very in ter esting...

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"with 'tongue planted firmly in cheek.'"

I see that. The author acts as if this is real legislation though, to make his straw man arguments for gay adoption.

[Graybeard58]

Whaddu think?

Not much.

Don't get too bent out of shape about this. Idiocy abounds.

[lentulusgracchus]

Too bad the "conservative" Cincinnati Enquirer won't allow any of their articles to be posted here.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Enquirer sued Madison.com for calling them that -- LOL.

You know, Brent Bozell could do us all a favor by, besides writing about MSM, starting a rating system similar to Consumers Union or the ADA/CU ratings. Rate papers and TV stations on quality of content, fairness, and so on. It could be multidimensional: the WSJ, for example, would rate as high quality, high tone, and slanted Republican but not social conservative, anti-statist, or Randite/objectivist/radical-capitalist. Some way to capture all that -- so you could discern RiNO news outlets and distinguish them from really conservative ones like the Indianapolis Star and the Manchester Union-Leader.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Article] Since Hood's homophobic legislation is not backed by evidence...

LOL, I thought this was a news article until I got to this part...

Well, actually, the first sentence was a dead canary:

Ohio state Sen. Bob Hagan has for decades been one of the nation's most progressive-minded and intellectually adventurous state legislators. [Emphasis added.]

[andyk]

actually, the first sentence was a dead canary

Hehe

[supercat]

I think that a ban on gays adopting children will play out as a losing proposition for those backing the ban.

I wouldn't be opposed to a gay person adopting a child if for some reason that person was in other regards sufficiently better-qualified than other prospective adoptees.

For example, if a child is orphaned and the only surviving relative that wants the child happens to be gay, I would believe that placing the child with such a relative may be better than placement with a stranger.

That having been said, I find myself wondering if there is in some places a de facto ban on conservatives adopting children from state agencies, since there are waiting lists both of people seeking to adopt and children needing to be adopted.

[gidget7]

His blatant attempt to say homosexuals are the same as Republicans, and a ban on adopting toward either group would make the same sense.........is going to help conservatives, not harm them. Every time one of these self righteous bigots open their mouths, they end up alienating more Americans.