Governor Rick Snyder would rather have 13,000 children languish in state sponsored homes and foster care than let any one of them be adopted by two loving men or women. There I said it, we all know thats what he really means. The recently rushed and signed (June 11) bill by the Michigan Governor is essentially the Religious Freedom Restoration Act for adoption and has already drawn the ire of the ACLU. The same derogatory and incendiary language for refusing services based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” has been passed in Michigan with little or no mention from any social media sphere even with the almost identical Indiana bill, complete with collective uproar, happening only a short while ago.. Sad proof that without prompt most of us just simply don’t care enough to participate unless CNN or Fox News scream it into our lives.
I have heard three arguments for the support of such a bill and they are as follows:
- “This is about making sure we get the largest number of kids in forever families,” Snyder said in a phone interview. “The more opportunities and organizations we have that are doing a good job of placing people in loving families, isn’t that better for all of us?”
- The moral and traditional two parent, dual sex household is the best and only acceptable home for an adopted child.
- There is an economic reason for turning away these homosexual couples and the state cannot handle any more costs.
Well the first one is just a quotation of Governor Snyder’s deceitful and distraction oriented word salad. Here is another similar response from Governor Snyder before we start analyzing his diatribe:
“We are focused on ensuring that as many children are adopted to as many loving families as possible regardless of their makeup.”
Essentially what he is saying is that since the number of children adopted every year is going up (85% in 2014 up from 70% in 2011) the state of Michigan can justify the religiously bigoted beliefs of certain organizations even if it results in 13,000 leftover children who live yet another year as wards of the state.
My argument for this always reverts back to the civil rights movements of the 60’s and simply replaces the couple requesting the adoption of an eager, desperate, and loving child from a homosexual couple to a black couple. Religious justifications were then and are still used for the discrimination of African American i.e. black people all over the world including the US. This new law would allow, hypothetically speaking of course, the new Ken Ham Creation Adoption Center to refuse in allowing a black male and female couple (cursed with the mark of Cain or Ham) to adopt a new baby as long as they gave a list of other adoption centers they could try or give them the state index resource list. I would like even FOX news to try to justify that over the round of racist applause from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (note to self stay out of Wyoming).
The second argument is the most popular and reiterated argument for the traditional family structure. There is scientific statistical research that shows when this traditional structure breaks down there are a myriad of psychological and physiological effects on the children. I will not dispute this in any way shape or form, but I will as a simple question what are the alternatives? I see three, adoption by ANY qualified and properly researched family, continual life in foster care or juvenile homes, and running away. In my research of the opposition I came upon a site adamantly against the concept of gay adoption culminating in the following:
“The exceptions I would make to a ban on gay adoption would involve instances when gay adoption is the more humane alternative. Such exceptions would include adopting a child from foster care, a child from an abusive family, or an orphaned child. For all its likely shortcomings in family-structure, a gay adoption would undoubtedly provide a far more stable environment than those alternatives.”
These ban exclusions specifically called upon to render gay adoption the more human option are common and regular occurrences in the adoption system which if placed in effect would make them more of a guideline or checklist on a regular sheet of paper in the filing process. Furthermore I would like to point out that the statistical values for depression and other negative effects for the breakdown of the traditional family structure used by the above quoted author would all be remedied more by the inclusion of a family headed by a same sex couple than continued life in the adoption for Jesus business plan.
The third reason is one of undue economic stress placed on the state by allowing state funded adoption centers to cage and ship babies to cannibal gay couples with bubbling cauldrons of atheist broth. OK that last part was an embellishment but that’s what it feels like when I interact with these people so I needed to say it. Anyways, this is the easiest one to break down and demolish so I can have a bit of fun.
Ways to reduce state costs on housing and providing for children in need of adoption.
- Find families that are responsible enough and ready to raise a child.
- Allow children to meet and spend time with prospective family.
- If all background, health safety and child happiness requirements are met by potential parents regardless of race, religion, or gender allow adoption.
There, some of those sadly left behind 13,000 children were just adopted and the costs were distributed to the new parents effectively reducing the state tax burden. Gay adoption will save Michigan money; so as our resident mitten wearing jackass, Governor Snyder, loves to say: isn’t that better for all of us?