Reply
Thu 17 Jul, 2008 08:24 am
The most serious argument I've seen against "gay marriage":
http://www.massnews.com/2004_editions/07_july/070804_kids_given_to_gay_parents.htm
Quote:
Could your kids be given to 'gay' parents?
The children going to homosexuals in Massachusetts are being seized by DSS from heterosexual families without fair trials, in Margaret Marshall’s ultra-feminist courts, as documented over the years by MassNews. This article about facts that were gleaned in part from MassNews was in WorldNetDaily on July 1.
By Stephen Baskerville
In the debate over gay marriage, strikingly little attention has been paid to the impact on children. Some question the wisdom of having children raised by two homosexuals, but the best they can seem to argue is that serious flaws vitiate the literature defending it.
Almost no attention has been devoted to what may be the more serious political question of who will supply the children of gay "parents," since obviously they cannot produce children themselves. A few will come from sperm donors and surrogate mothers, but very few. The vast majority will come, because they already do come, from pre-existing heterosexual families. In Massachusetts, "Forty percent of the children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families," according to Democratic state Sen. Therese Murphy.
Sen. Murphy seems totally oblivious to the implications. "Will you deny them their rights?" she asks. With some 3 percent of the population, gay couples already seem to enjoy a marked advantage over straight ones in the allocation of supposedly superfluous children.
But whose rights are being denied depends on how deeply we probe and what questions we ask. Granting gay couples the "right" to have children by definition means giving them the right to have someone else's children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them.
Not necessarily. Governments that kind-heartedly bestow other people's children on homosexual couples also have both the power and the motivation to confiscate those children from their original parents, even when the parents have done nothing to warrant losing them.
Sen. Murphy formulaically asks us to take pity on "children who have been neglected, abandoned, abused by their own families." But this is far from the whole picture.
Ever since the federal government became involved in the child-abuse business some 30 years ago, governments nationwide have had the means and the incentive to seize children from their parents with no due process finding that the parents have actually abused their children. The 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, also known as the Mondale Act) provides generous financial incentives to states to remove people's children under the guise of protecting them. In the aftermath of CAPTA, the foster-care rolls exploded, as children were torn from their parents and federal funds poured into state coffers and foster-care providers. According to the Child Welfare League of America, "There were many instances then, as now, of children being removed unnecessarily from families." Many foster homes were far more abusive than the families from which the children had been removed.
But the federal government, ever ready to create a new program to address the problems created by its existing programs, had a solution. The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act provided more federal money to transfer children from foster care into adoption, enlarging the client base of stakeholders with a vested financial interest in available children. Gay marriage expands this client base still further.
Howard Children Were Lucky
Among the states that have taken fullest advantage of this gravy train is Massachusetts. A typical case is that of Neil and Heidi Howard, whose children were seized by the state's Department of Social Services (DSS) with no charge of abuse against either parent and no evidentiary hearing. DSS tried to put the children up for adoption and were prevented only by lengthy court proceedings and extensive publicity in the Massachusetts News. Other families are not so fortunate.
This traffic in children has been in full flow since well before gay marriage. Belchertown attorney Gregory Hession alleges a "child protection racket" rife with "baby stealing and baby selling." Hession describes courts where the hallways are clogged with parents and children being adopted. "You could hardly walk. You had never seen such mass adoptions before." Reporter Nev Moore of the News describes the auction blocks for children operated by DSS:
If you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS's quaint "Adoption Fairs," where live children are put on display and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell kids. If one of them begs you to take him home you can always say, "Sorry. Just looking."
This is the bureaucratic milieu – largely hidden from all but those who must endure it – into which gay marriage advocates want to inject millions of new couples in search of children to adopt.
The number of truly abused children cannot begin to fill this demand without government help. We know that statistically child abuse in intact two-parent families is rare, and two-thirds of reports are never substantiated. Yet even in those instances of confirmed abuse, a little digging reveals the pernicious hand of the government generating business (and children) for itself.
Child abuse is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of single-parent homes. Government and feminist propaganda suggest that single-parent homes result from paternal abandonment. In fact, they are usually created by family court judges, who have close ties to the social service agencies that need children. By forcibly removing fathers from the home through unilateral or "no-fault" divorce, family courts create the environment most conducive to child abuse and initiate the process that leads to removal of the children from the mother, foster care, and adoption. Gay adoption is simply the logical culmination in the process of turning children into political instruments for government officials.
What this demonstrates is that same-sex marriage cannot be effectively challenged in isolation. Opponents must bite the bullet and confront the two evils that pose a far more serious and direct threat to the family than gay marriage: the child protection gestapo and the even more formidable "no-fault" divorce machine.
Failure to grasp this nettle will leave social conservatives exposed to ever more contempt from a public that is crying out for leadership to rescue the family but which has been led to view social conservatives, however unjustly, as puritanical bigots who want to deny equal rights to homosexuals – rights that entail powers of totalitarian dimensions, undreamed of before the sexual revolution.
Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is Charlotte and Walter Kohler Fellow at the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
This one gets better quickly. Try doing google searches on 'neil and heidi howard' and look at some of what turns up...
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/march%202001/marbab.htm
Quote:
Newborn Snatched By DSS From Parents Who Were In Hiding
Mother and Father Shackled in Lowell For Not Handing Over Infant
By Ed Oliver
February 13, 2001
The parents of a two-month-old girl were arrested for contempt yesterday at Lowell District Court after they refused to disclose the location of their baby to DSS which was seeking to take the infant from them.
Neil and Heidi Howard sat shackled in a holding cell for several hours yesterday. They were released after their baby girl was located by DSS at the home of their pastor. Social workers took the baby away and DSS now has custody of all three of their children.
Neil Howard told Massachusetts News, “The contempt charge would have been thirty days, we were willing, of course, to spend at least that long to protect her.” Heidi added, “We were willing to spend 18 years in jail to protect our daughter.”
The couple hid with their baby for two weeks at a friend’s apartment leading up to yesterday’s developments. The mother told MassNews through her tears that her baby needs her and she won’t be there for her.
The Howards haven’t had their day in court yet, according to their attorney Greg Hession, even though it’s been over a year since DSS took the Howard’s other two children. They have two sons, Christopher, who is now 10-years-old, and Ethan who is five.
Attorney Greg Hession, who handles DSS cases on a regular basis and is aghast at what happens to good families at the hands of the agency, told Mass News, “These people at DSS don’t have any idea how to respect the due process rights of parents. Consequently they go past the limits they’re allowed under the law. That’s what they did in this case, they’ve been doing this for over a year now in this case.”
DSS Noticed She Was No Longer Pregnant
Neil Howard explained to MassNews what happened in this most recent episode with DSS. Shortly after a supervised visit with their sons, which he explained occurs for one hour a month under strict rules such as no hugging or sitting on laps, DSS noticed that Heidi was no longer pregnant. She must have had her baby.
DSS began calling the couple demanding they bring the infant to the DSS office “to be viewed.” If they did not comply, DSS would have to take what they called appropriate measures. They said it was very serious and they had concerns. The Howards said they were extremely wary after the terrible treatment their family had suffered so far at the hands of the social service agency.
“We had already taken Jessica to a pediatrician, she already had been viewed by a court-appointed GAL and a court-appointed doctor. She was thriving. The doctor was thrilled. She was gaining weight and doing terrific. It was evident from the DSS answering machine messages that they were going to take the baby, so we decided to leave our home and stay with friends.
“We basically hid out with them for a couple of weeks. We heard through our attorney that DSS was filing for custody based on nothing. They basically said because of past ‘abuse,’ which they still haven't proven to this day. They said they needed to take this newborn child. We hope someday to prove there is absolutely no neglect or abuse in this family.
“Today we came to court. They ordered us to produce the child. We refused. We had already arranged with our pastor to take the child and place her temporarily with people they trusted. We were then arrested and incarcerated until they could somehow find the baby. They later told us they did manage to take our baby from us, so now they have all of our children.”
Taken from Pastor’s Home
Attorney Gregory Hession gave the office phone number of the pastor to the court in hopes the Howards would not be jailed.
Pastor Montel B. Wilder of Grace Baptist Church in Pepperell told MassNews that instead of DSS calling him at his office as he expected, the social workers went straight to his home with the police. The baby was still at home with the pastor’s wife.
DSS told the wife they had a court order and were taking the child immediately. She managed to stall them long enough to call her husband who rushed home.
The pastor refused at first to hand over the child, telling DSS that the parents entrusted the baby to him. The police, however, explained they had a court order and they would have to take the baby. The pastor said he realized there wasn’t much he could do.
Pastor Wilder said if DSS had called him at his office, he would not have violated his parishioner’s confidentiality and would not have told them where the baby was.
“It was just a beautiful baby,” he said. “The little girl was in excellent health. It looked fine. There was no way that baby was abused in any way.” He said the Howards seemed to be fine parents. He recounted how the mother showed great concern that morning when she wrote out instructions for the baby and made sure it had food, diapers, and that the Wilders knew what to do when it burped and slept. “She wrote out everything for us.”
Attorney Hession commented, “DSS said they had a court order. But they proceeded to ask for this child from these parents without ever verifying the truth about the past allegations against the family first. If the parents had the opportunity to actually have a hearing with cross-examination and testimony under oath, which has never been afforded to these parents yet in a year-and-a-half, they are confident they can disprove these allegations. Therefore this child would not have had to have been ripped away from its parents. So the problem is due process. All these cases, the problem is due process.
“They refuse to respect our constitutional system which gives a presumption that something isn’t true unless there is actual proof and an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to cross examine witnesses.”
The Howards and their attorney met with MassNews months ago with DSS records and other documentation to tell the details of their story, which will be covered in a separate article. They appear to be a loving couple who are distraught over the loss of their children.
You might want to read your propoganda before you post it gunga. It says gay marriage is NOT the biggest problem.
Quote:What this demonstrates is that same-sex marriage cannot be effectively challenged in isolation. Opponents must bite the bullet and confront the two evils that pose a far more serious and direct threat to the family than gay marriage: the child protection gestapo and the even more formidable "no-fault" divorce machine.
More...
http://www.massnews.com/2003_Editions/1_Jan/011503_mn_howards_again.shtml
Quote:
MassNews Staff
January 15, 2003
DSS caseworkers are back banging on the door of Neil and Heidi Howard, Tyngsboro, as the result of an anonymous tip, demanding to "interview" at 1:30 today these parents of three children.
The Howards were just reunited last year, in January 2002, after two years of separation and 30 hearings with Atty. Chester Darling and Greg Hession representing them. The grueling ordeal finally ended happily when retired Judge Robert Belmonte had the courage to stand up to the system and send the children back home.
But DSS is now back again. It all started again last Friday, Jan. 10, when two obvious caseworkers came to the door and started banging...
If there is one thing Heidi learned the hard way, it was, "Always say 'no' when a DSS worker wants to enter your home, and always take their threats very seriously." So she did not answer the door when they appeared without warning on Friday.
On Monday they returned and banged some more. This time they left a notice that an anonymous 51A violation had been received against the Howards and the social workers would be back today at 1:30 for an interview. But Neil Howard called and told them not to come. He informed them that if an interview is scheduled, it will include Atty. Hession, a reporter from MassNews and a tape recorder....
From the People's Republic of Mass. Funny thing, ALL of America could soon be like that if Obama wins the coming election...
I'm usually with you, 'Snake, but I mean, what's the problem and how much worse is it than the alternative?
Bisexuality is probably impart-able via parental figures - the Greeks at times had to throttle back on it to keep the population up - and homosexual parents probably would impart it some of the time - but damn it anyway if it's that easy to get the point across - shall we trick people into being straight.
I sent General Monopoly a resume onetime, I never liked the company, or the facility in question, outright hate Jack Welch, but I had to sort some stuff out and thought they'd pay and look OK on the resume - thing is with GE you've got prove to them, continually, what you're good for. Samething with IBM. Sounds great right? No one taking up space, all becks bent. But then, hey, if they can't take people for whatever they're worth and make money - they might be a damn fine blue-chip, but they're not moving up - I bet China can make use of anyone. Instead, I got with a company where it was more like a relationship - they had a cool enough act to make money off grunts and if one wanted to excel, more power to ya. It's not just running a sweatshop - if you can employ that way you employ whole people not positions...
I say that to say this - either way is fine with a company - rising stars tend not to last (although to the extent of knowing what to do with folk, and folk being the kindof thing you can do stuff with rather'n get sued by, in a freer market most could manage) - but as a nation (I know Br'er 'Snake's with me here), we can't just throw up our hands and be a social-club like Switzerland - if we've got the plan, and we'd damn well better, we need as many Americans and productive immigrants (immigrantes productivamente') as we can get. Get us some of those unwanted Chinese kids, change the script around for kids whose biological families are dysfunctional, counter-act irresponsible breeding patterns to keep morons from outnumbering us - I mean all we've got to lose is a scenario that's screwed up to begin with and there's much to gain...
hanno wrote:I'm usually with you, 'Snake, but I mean, what's the problem and how much worse is it than the alternative? .....
The problem appears to be a feral/out-of-control bureaucracy problem more than a gay problem, but the gays are inextricably bound up in it.
The handful of gays I know or have anything to do with are not interested in raising children and I would assume that the idea (of raising kids) has only started to occur to gays recently.
Ronald Reagan's idea of starving government agencies to death would most likely fix the problem.
Ew gross! Girly boys being parents? Diesel dyke's? What IS this world coming to??? Everyone knows that only straight white christians can be parents!
An argument ot worth having.
Are you saying that children are being kidnapped from good families in order to supply homosexual couples with children?
If that is what you're suggesting, why do you think they're doing this?
gungasnake wrote:hanno wrote:I'm usually with you, 'Snake, but I mean, what's the problem and how much worse is it than the alternative? .....
The problem appears to be a feral/out-of-control bureaucracy problem more than a gay problem, but the gays are inextricably bound up in it.
The handful of gays I know or have anything to do with are not interested in raising children and I would assume that the idea (of raising kids) has only started to occur to gays recently.
Ronald Reagan's idea of starving government agencies to death would most likely fix the problem.
Hmmm - come to think of it - foster kids are big business - I do know people what live off the government checks that accompany them, and social services are out of control. If we could diminish bureaucracy by taking the do-nothing alternative on gay marriage, I'd be all for it, that's the very point I'm at with legal grass, but as long as the turd's already in the punchbowl floating around - I would see gay-marriage as something separate with the potential either to help or at worst enable the problem - either way we get more cards out on the table.
If I was a child, I would rather be raised in the home of a nice gay couple instead of the bigoted, hate filled bunker of Gungasnake. Lord knows, at least the surroundings would be tasteful, the food well cooked, my wardrobe would be stylish and there would be a complete collection of Edith Piaf recordings to listen to.
In case you didn't read far enough to get to the good part.
Quote:
What this demonstrates is that same-sex marriage cannot be effectively challenged in isolation. Opponents must bite the bullet and confront the two evils that pose a far more serious and direct threat to the family than gay marriage: the child protection gestapo and the even more formidable "no-fault" divorce machine.
Failure to grasp this nettle will leave social conservatives exposed to ever more contempt from a public that is crying out for leadership to rescue the family but which has been led to view social conservatives, however unjustly, as puritanical bigots who want to deny equal rights to homosexuals; rights that entail powers of totalitarian dimensions, undreamed of before the sexual revolution.
They actually know we hold them in contempt.
green witch wrote:If I was a child, I would rather be raised in the home of a nice gay couple instead of the bigoted, hate filled bunker of Gungasnake. Lord knows, at least the surroundings would be tasteful, the food well cooked, my wardrobe would be stylish and there would be a complete collection of Edith Piaf recordings to listen to.
funny! i'm just listening to edith piaf
and fully agree with you.
Quote:Hmmm - come to think of it - foster kids are big business - I do know people what live off the government checks that accompany them,
These people should be reported.
I don't mind if my tax dollars go to help kids in foster care but I do care if people are living off the checks -- the checks are supposed to go directly to the child's expenses.
Quote: Foster care funds don't cover parents' bills, report says
By Wendy Koch, USA TODAY
Most states pay foster parents far less than what middle-income families spend to raise their children, says a report out today by University of Maryland researchers.
"Foster parents should receive the funds they need," says co-author Julie Farber, director of policy at Children's Rights, a New York-based advocacy group. Too often, she says, they either stop taking in foster kids or dig into their own pockets to pay for prom dresses and Boy Scout uniforms.
The report comes as more states report a shortage of families to care for the 500,000 children nationwide in foster care.
The report estimates the national average for monthly costs for healthy foster kids at $629 for a 2-year-old, $721 for a 9-year-old and $790 for a 16-year-old.
Only Arizona and the District of Columbia paid more for each age group, and most states paid far less, according to the report. Nebraska had the lowest monthly rate: $226 for a 2-year-old. Families taking kids with disabilities receive higher "therapeutic" rates.
More...http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-02-fosterchildren_n.htm
boomerang wrote:Are you saying that children are being kidnapped from good families in order to supply homosexual couples with children?
I almost had a hard time believing it myself.
Did you happen to look at the date on your articles?
2004 wasn't that long ago. I mean, there were wheels then and cars had rubber tires and what not....
Green Witch wrote:If I was a child, I would rather be raised in the home of a nice gay couple instead of the bigoted, hate filled bunker of Gungasnake. Lord knows, at least the surroundings would be tasteful, the food well cooked, my wardrobe would be stylish and there would be a complete collection of Edith Piaf recordings to listen to.
Good work, GW . . . that one really cracked me up . . .
gungasnake wrote:2004 wasn't that long ago. I mean, there were wheels then and cars had rubber tires and what not....
the 2004 'article' is a re-tread of their 2001 article. Anyone know what happened to the Howards and the kids after 2001?
All I found out was that the family had been reunified before the kids were sold off to homosexuals in the double super secret steal a baby to pacify the gays so they'll quit clogging the streets with all those parades government agency. (www.DSSSABTPTGSTQCTSWATP.gov)
Funny though, that no traditional news agency paid any attention to this story, or, if they did, there is no record of it. I couldn't find out anything about why the kids were all taken away in the first place. It seems that someone tipped off CPS, they paid a visit and removed the kids but as to what they found there I have no idea.
It must have been some sort of conspiracy to have the evidence removed from all local media.
Must have been.
Yeah huh.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace