I think it's ideal for a child to be raised by a married mother and father. But on the other hand, look at Andrea Yates. I would rather have seen those children adopted by a gay, lesbian or transgendered couple. Anyone but her and her stupid husband. Perhaps if that had been the case, those children would be alive and well today.

Good point, Zelda. Interesting that Bush thinks children can get love from gay parents, yet isn't opposed to a law that would prefer unfit heterosexual parents to gay parents. Brilliant. That's supposed to be the job of Children and Family Services or whatever organization has authority over adoptions. But they might actually judge gay parents FIT to raise children, so what to do ? Aha! Pass a law forbidding it!!! Oh, SO tolerant.

I'd like to see these "studies" that Bush refers to. Even if they DO exist (which I doubt) I'll put money on the fact that they were done by hacks, and when critically reviewed (you know like we did with the junk science claiming fraud in the Ohio election) they would be shown to be entirely flawed and that the conclusions are unsupportable.

But hey, don't let any of that stop us from pushing those icky gays back into their closets where they belong.

While I am gay and while I did vote for Bush and while I'm sure studies have shown it is "ideal" for a child to be raised with a mother and a father, the fact is there's no license we give out to be a parent. If you want to prohibit gays from adopting fine. Then you also prohibit single parents from adopting. Then you also prohibit married couples from divorcing, and if they have already divorced, force them to remarry.... Nevermind whether or not both parents actually love and care for the child... just as long as one has indoor plumbing, and one has outdoor. ...Right?

Excellent point, Chad. There is no license to be a parent. People can just belt out kids no matter how fit they are to care for them. A few weeks ago, I wrote on my blog about a coke-addicted woman who had seven kids, with seven different men. Three of the children had cocaine in their blood. The kids are currently in foster care. The judge in the case, a woman, ordered her not to have more kids. I would rather have seen these kids adopted by a loving gay couple, as opposed to being in foster care. And if that makes me a "hypocritical" conservative, then so be it.

Yeah. In an ideal world, all children would live in a two parent, male-female household, and receive all the love and support they deserve.

Since that world isn't happening in this lifetime, departments of children and family services should be able to make the best choices possible to give the children the best chances possible. And if the choice is a child languishing in foster care, or worse, state-run "care" facilities (glorified orphanages), I don't understand why they'd pick that over a loving gay couple.

As a gay man, I'm not too keen on a lot of what the gay community calls bigotry and discrimination. But, that Florida law does seem based solely on anti-gay animus, and worse, just rank stupidity that doesn't take the best interests of the kids to heart at all.

There should be a hierarchy when it comes to adoption. Two married parents first. Then gay couple. Then, maybe (it's iffy), single parent, then foster care and state-care facilities.

Why it has to be a "married heterosexuals or shitty state care!" either-or proposition is beyond me.

You really can't use that one case where the mother is insane as any kind of representative situation. It is extremely rare for a mother to kill her children.

It is very hard for the government to take people's kids away, and that is generally considered a good thing, despite the highly publicized and horrible cases we see from time to time.

Children raised by two biological parents have the lowest mortality rate of all groups, when other things (income, housing etc) are held equal.

Their mortality rate increases dramatically when one of the parents is non-biological (a step-parent).

I would be interested to see a study comparing children of homosexual partners, but I doubt it would be a large enough group to provide reliable stats.

Homosexuals are a small subset of population already, and homosexuals who want to get married and raise children are statistically teensy group.

It is in the best interest of the child to be raised in a conventional home and it will be until the bias against gays is dead and buried where it should be. A child should never be subjected a prejudice because of his parents sexual preference but you know it's going to happen until attitudes change. That's not likely to happen until gays work on their image problem and get the radical minority to stop parading in drag with their "we're here, we're queer, get used to it!" demands and start presenting a more socially acceptable example for everyone to see. One hundred good examples are all too often destroyed by one bad one. Society wouldn't accept straight people flaunting their behavior in that manner either. If you want to be accepted by society be socially acceptable. I know very few people that are offended by homosexuality, but many who are offended by the way a small segment presents it, and that includes many gay friends.

Bullwinkle, I couldn't agree more. I was talked into going to New York City's gay pride parade last summer, knowing full well that all I would see would be stereotypical "fags" parading around in thongs and body glitter. I was thoroughly embarassed. My feeling is that if you want equal rights, stop showing everyone how different you are. We gays need to start showing that the stereotypes are not the majority.

>It is extremely rare for a mother to kill her children.

You don't know what you're talking about. Men lead women in all other categories of murder except when it comes to killing their own children. Women lead that particular category, and it's by no means rare. Particularly when you count up the manslaughters as well as the felony murders.

Cal,

You shouldn't tell somebody they don't know what they are talking about when you don't know what you're talking about. Browse this then explain to us how a child killed by a parent is not a rare event. Perhaps you have a different definition of rare?

I am a gay woman. I would be more inclined to vote Republican if the party was less "values" oriented.

Brew--I always know what I'm talking about.

Lauraw's comment was that it's extremely rare for mothers to kill their children. I interpreted that, quite reasonably, as "in comparison to other child killers". You appear to have interpreted it as "it's rare for children to be killed".

I think my interpretation is more reasonable, but let's go ahead and use yours. First, I think it's important to remember that childhood extends well beyond the age of 5, as your cite would have us believe otherwise. Using another DOJ statistic, it appears that children age 0-17 have a homicide rate of 8.5 out of 100,000, which pretty much ties them for third with people age 35-49 and well ahead of seniors age 50 and up. So if it's "rare" for a child to be killed, then it's "rare" for adults age 35-49 to be killed, and almost unheard of for seniors to be killed.

And for all children killed by an individual, those 15 and under are more than 50% likely to be killed by their someone they know, and of that percent, the overwhelming odds on favorite is a parent, and of that group, at least 50% turns out to be the mother.

I'm not sure if this counts manslaughter, because I believe a fair number of abuse victims die every year as well. (Of course, if a mother offs her baby in Europe, it counts as manslaughter.)

Not that it matters to the conversation at hand. I just always correct anyone claiming that mothers rarely kill their kids. It leads directly to excusing them because after all, if they kill their child, they must be sick, poor dears.

Cal,

They clearly are sick, even if they are not "poor dears" (i.e. deserving of pity).

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court emphatically rejected the notion that the social stigma of the parents affects the best interests of the child, at least in the case of interracial marriage.

A divorced white woman got custody of her daughter, but then she married a black man and the judge gave custody to the father. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the white kid would be harmed by the social stigma of having a white mom and a black step-dad. The Supreme Court shot that down right quick.

I interpreted that, quite reasonably, as "in comparison to other child killers".

Thats not what she said or implied. She simply stated its rare for mothers to kill their children. That is a fact Cal.

Nice strawman though.

Brew--but as I just demonstrated, it's not rare. If a child is killed, the parent is by far the most likely suspect. And a child murder is not rare, in comparison to all murders.

"They clearly are sick, even if they are not "poor dears" (i.e. deserving of pity)."

Are pedophiles sick? Are rapists sick? And do you generally focus on their sickness first? If so, fine. But I find most people who talk about "sick" mothers killing their kids are more likely to view them as less worthy of condemnation than "sick" pedophiles and rapists. If that's not a bias you share, great.

Face it. The notion that a married heterosexual couple is the "ideal" for raising a family is nonsense. And a moot point, because all sorts of family arrangements come about naturally. One parent dies, both parents die, parents divorce, other family members raise children. This just naturally happens....and quite often. To say that there is an ideal based on some kind of family "structure" is absurd. The "ideal" is having people raise children (be it one person or more, heterosexual or homosexual) who give a damn about the children and provide a loving, nurturing, supportive environment for them.

As usual, Bush has no idea what he is talking about. That's been proven over and over again with any topic he's handed.