It’s Here

The bill to ban unmarried people from adopting children is here, submitted today by Senator Paul Stanley.

Yes, Citizens of Earth, the very day after the House had to hold a hearing because Representative Williams didn’t seem to understand he wasn’t being elected by his constituents to represent them at a giant frat party, some other elected legislator had the audacity to try to tell us about what’s appropriate morality.  See, they can fuck whoever they want whenever they want or die trying, but woe to you if you want to fall in love with someone and give a child a loving home, if you don’t fit what they think is right.

I’m sorry, but there shouldn’t be a single one of those motherfuckers who can even attempt to vote for this bullshit without being struck by lightning upon reaching for to cast their vote.  In a just universe, God would have these sorry, cruel motherfuckers by the ear, dragging them off to have a stern talking-to, because they are an embarrassment to the good name of Creation.

And, it’s not bad enough that Paul Stanley has to reveal himself as a heartless, cruel, motherfucker.  No.  It’s not enough for Stanley that he thinks he has the right to bring the weight of the state down upon your personal life, to bring the state into your bedroom to make sure you’re conducting yourself appropriately (though you know, you’re not allowed to stand around in Stanley’s bedroom to make sure he’s on the up and up.  Cops get called for shit like that.).  It’s not enough that he wants to bring the full weight of the state down on you to make sure you understand that you’re not a real family.

No.  To twist the knife as far as it will go, he throws in this little gem:

It is also the public policy of this state to place children into adoptive families that provide the most stable familial relationships for that child and will foster an appreciation for the policies of this state that favor marriage over unmarried cohabitation.

See?!  It’s not just about hurting potential parents.  It’s about placing children with adoptive families that will “foster an appreciation for the policies of the state!”  HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, so now it’s not just about keeping kids out of the homes of fornicators and homosexuals, it’s about keeping kids out of the homes of liberals and libertarians of all sorts.  A family is now not just a group of people united by love, but a group of people united by love, tied together by the state, and who are dedicated to brainwashing children into believing that whatever the State believes is the best thing to believe.  And if you don’t believe that’s the case, this little law would establish that the State has a problem with that.  A problem Child Services might take an interest in.

Even if you believe that children are better off in married heterosexual families, clearly you’ve got to see the danger in defining “family” in a way that includes propagandizing on behalf of the State.

I am begging you, Democrats, if you can’t vote against this nonsense because it hurts unmarried people and gay people, vote against it because it’s not the State’s business to require you to foster in your children an appreciation for jack shit.

I mean, seriously.

28 thoughts on “It’s Here

  1. You beat me to it, I just posted on this.

    I want Paul Stanley out of my bedroom. I find it very telling that with unemployment in the state at 8%, THIS is the issue they want to focus on. TNGOP, still not looking out for you.

  2. B, I’m definitely going to internet-marry you for this post. You know, with your consent and all (which is more considerate than the TN legislature would be).

  3. Pingback: Shot fired « Michael not Mike

  4. I don’t know what to say. I think it’s just awful. On a personal level this really bothers me.

    Of course throwing the “policies of the state” throws an even darker cloud over a cruel concept.

    Different but related (at least to me), here in Massachusetts I had a doctor tell me he didn’t feel comfortable helping me pursue fertility treatments because I am single.

  5. Amber, some doctors are assholes and you found one. I’m sorry you got such lousy treatment. If you’re in western MA, I can give you the name of doctors over here in Albany that have no such “comfort” issues.

  6. Pingback: Cultural War Galore : Post Politics: Political News and Views in Tennessee

  7. My family helped build this goddamned state and I don’t feel welcome in it anymore. Why can’t folks just do as our founders did and mind their own goddamned business? No wonder the rest of America treats us like a bunch of stump jumping hillbillies: we fit the profile.

  8. I’d go back to the to my home–the Old North State (NC)–but they will soon pass a bill like this as well, I’m sure.

  9. Aw, now, Casey. Can’t you see? No one in Tennessee wants you to leave. That’s why we have to cut funding to higher education–so that you can’t afford to go anywhere.

  10. Pingback: SayUncle » Told ya

  11. Ha Ha! JIm said it. I was picturing a bunch of spit shined little white chillins in little black shorts, red shirts and sashes all marching in happy time while their parents round up undesirables, but my German’s not good.

  12. I’m one of six kids and have 4 of my own. One of my sister’s is gay and in a long term relationship. She also has a Phd, is athletic and loves the outdoors.

    I consider her the most psychology healthy of my siblings. If I and my children’s mother were to die, she and her partner would be my first choice to raise my children.

  13. So what does happen in a case like DADvocate mentions? Can his gay sister legally adopted his children if that is what his and his wife’s wills direct? Has Rep. Stanley even thought of such a scenario?

  14. absolutely not – that would be an illegal provision in DADvocate’s will and would thus be stricken by the courrts.

    p.s. I’m not all that sure if you can use “thought” and “Rep. Stanley” in the same sentence.

  15. I have a serious question about whether this will affect the “full faith and credit” stuff. If someone gay or unmarried-but-cohabiting adopts in another state and then moves to TN, how is the state going to react?

  16. Alwayshungrylab, I do believe, under this law, DADvocate’s wish that his sister and her partner raise his children would be problematic at best. It’s very clear that she and her partner would not be able to legally adopt them. It seems also clear that the State’s position would be that it had a compelling interest in putting them with someone–i.e. someone who can be and is legally married in Tennessee–who better fits the State’s ideas about good parents than DADvocates.

  17. OK Paul Stanley, I have a proposal for you. You say your objective is to “foster an appreciation for the policies of this state that favor marriage over unmarried cohabitation” — in other words, to make people realize how damn important it is to grow up in a household with a married mother and father. Well, I say the only way to prove it is with SCIENCE! Let’s put half the adopted children with straight parents and the other half with gay parents. Then, if your hypothesis is correct, all the gay-parented kids will see how much better off their straight-parented friends are (and vice versa) and all will be enlightened as to the value of the policies of the state. And if you’re wrong, and sexual orientation and marital status don’t have anything to do with parenting ability, then the policies of the state will be out of luck, but a whole lot of kids will have nice homes. And you will have to buy me an ice cream sundae.

  18. Here’s the thing I wonder–and I have no first-hand knowledge, because my parents are still together. Is there anyone who, as an adult, wishes that their parents had stayed together?

    I mean, I know as a kid when you’re in the middle of the divorce, a lot of kids wish that their parents could have worked things out. But I’m talking, once you’re an adult and you see things from the perspective of your parents.

    Because I know a lot of people who wish their parents had gotten a divorce rather than just make each other and their family miserable. I know a lot of people who wish their parents had gotten divorced sooner rather than dragging it out.

    But barring the one extraordinary case I know of–where my friend’s dad divorced her mom and then got cancer and died with no one to take care of him (and the mom would have taken care of him until the end)–I don’t know anyone who wishes their parents would have just stuck it out.

    So, I have to wonder about all this projecting of a belief in the sanctity of married couples raising kids onto said kids. I know a lot of people who were raised by unmarried people or by beloved step-parents who, though I’m sure often wish things had gone easier, feel that a family’s ability to reorganize in a lot of ways that might from the outside seem unfortunate is important to everyone’s happiness.

    So, why then is there this push to pretend otherwise?

  19. Because when folks like this talk about “protecting the family” or “protecting marriage,” they really mean “protecting the privilege that certain types of families [or certain forms of marriage] now have.” Pretending that certain forms of marriage and family are bad for children (despite all the very real evidence that they aren’t) helps to bolster the privileged position of the more typical forms — and, of course, by placing extra difficulties in the way of non-traditional arrangements, they hope to make the failure they’re claiming to fear more common.

  20. I know you’re right, but honestly, it blows my mind. It blows my mind that people could put their own need to feel special above humanity. Especially once it should be obvious to them that that’s what they’re doing.

Comments are closed.