Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

boomerang wrote:

In my example, the "ex" was a sperm donor at a fertility clinic who, I would assue, had already terminated any rights he might have had.

I could be mistaken but I think this is the way most gay women conceive.

Fair enough. You'd still have to adopt though. Wink

0 Replies

And that's my point!

Under current law, they can't. If they were married they probably could. Most likely could.

By the same token, a gay man can adopt a child but his partner can't adopt the same child.

So if something happens to the biological or adoptive parent the other person that the kid has known as a parent is SOL.

Maybe the law we used - the "psychological parent" law would work for them but I don't think many states have that provision and, as per my example, it would be too late to try to use it.

If it took US a year to find an attorney imagine what it might be like for a gay couple under these circumstances.

All I'm really saying is that whether or not you think gay couples should or should not be parents you shouldn't make their kids bear the brunt of their "lifestyle".

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

And that's my point!

Under current law, they can't. If they were married they probably could. Most likely could.

Under current laws 7 states prohibit gays/lesbians from adopting. There are no prohibitions on them adopting in the other states. Most of those 7 also prohibit a single person from adopting regardless of their sexual orientation.

Quote:

All I'm really saying is that whether or not you think gay couples should or should not be parents you shouldn't make their kids bear the brunt of their "lifestyle".

Personally I couldn't care less what any potential parents sexual lifesytle is. I don't think the whole issue is that simple though. I doubt that legalized gay marriage in all of the states would change the adoption laws very much at all because the issue that the courts look to first is the biological parentage of the child.

The whole area of paternity, adoption and child support is basicly up for grabs at the moment. Men who donated sperm at clinics are being tracked down several years afterwards and sued for child support. Men are being forced to pay child support for children that they didn't father, etc.. In a case in PA a woman was artifically insemented without her husband's knowledge, delivered quads and he was forced to accept paternity. We've also seen cases with lesbian couples where one deliverd the child, the other adopted and then they both sued the biological father for child support. Most recently the adoptive parent in a lesbian couple was forced to pay child support when she and her partner seperated.

These are all cases where the edge of paternity law and adoption issues are being pushed and decided.

0 Replies

I think I'm going to vomit.

You know, I really love the way you are able to poke holes in my thinking, fishin'. I think I've got things all worked out and then.....

.... along comes fishin'.

And as crazy as that makes me I really do appreciate it.

Adoption laws in this country have to change.

So many people adopt internationally because adopting an American child is so dangerous.

And there are so many American kids that need homes too.

Please excuse me while I go beat my head against the wall for a while.......

0 Replies

lol If it makes you feel any better I agree with you Boomer! Razz

The whole process is messed up and it's kids that are getting the short end of the stick.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

You don't feel like you're being hammered on this thread do you slkshock?

I hope not!

I'm really trying to understand your position and I apologize if anything I've said seems like an attack.

No, Boomer, this thread is fine....pleasant change, actually.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Doesn't requiring marriage as a prerequisite for sex sound somewhat ironic, considering your condemnation of the Taliban the same thing, although to a different degree? Well, you possibly consider the idea as something other than theological in origin, but not everyone would agree.
Anyway, pointing out an inconsistancy can't be considered an attack.

yeah, I took the politically correct tact of condemning the Taliban, but argued my desire for judeo-christian underpinnings to our own government...I guess that might sound a little inconsistent.

In a perfect world, I don't think theocracies are all bad (heck, I hope to live in one, someday). But I'm not naive enough to believe it would ever work here in the US (or anywhere else in this imperfect world, I daresay).

0 Replies

slkshock - why would you like to live in a theocracy?

As always I feel the need to explain this isn't a tactic. If I knew anything about tactics I'd be a professional football coach earning squillions of dollars.

Anyway I most certainly would abhor living in anything but a tolerant but secular society so I'm interested in your views if you would care to share them.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, leader of the more than 100 conservative members of the Republican Study Committee, charges that some Republicans think "big government is good government if it's our government."

boomerang- I think that the above says it all. Old time conservatives were thrifty about government spending

The big government / small government thing is not just about money, either.

In Georgia, there's been something up with a Voter Identification Law: Georgia's Voter Identification Law Barred.

The telling detail of that article, however, comes near the end:

Quote:

Supporters of the law said they would challenge the ruling.

"We'll appeal it until the Supreme Court makes a decision. Hopefully by then the president will have a good conservative court up there that understands the will of the people," said Republican state Sen. Don Balfour.

That's not traditional conservatism, not to mention the usual Constitutionalist drum beat about the need to interpret the law purely by the letter of the Constitution, and to stop "activist judges".

Ruling purely by the letter of the law? No, thats not what the Supreme Court is to do at all, according to Balfour's brand of Republicans. It is to express "the will of the people" - if, of course, the people happen to have voted Republican.

Little affinity with checks and balances, or the need for neutral institutions. Politics is a fight for the soul of the nation, of us against them. That can and should be fought by any means necessary. And anyone who purports to (want to) be 'neutral' must just be a stooge of the opposition, and should be taken out.

Something along those lines.

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

Good find, nimh. Thanks for posting that.

That is not traditional conservatism.

"The will of the people" and "majority rules" seem to be big catch phrases these days.

Hmmm.

0 Replies

Yep. Apparently "strict constructionists" are aware that the Founders actually intended to create an absolute democracy.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

slkshock - why would you like to live in a theocracy?

As always I feel the need to explain this isn't a tactic. If I knew anything about tactics I'd be a professional football coach earning squillions of dollars.

Anyway I most certainly would abhor living in anything but a tolerant but secular society so I'm interested in your views if you would care to share them.

Goodfielder,

Like all Christians, we expect to enter heaven when we die, which is the theocracy I look forward to living in.

Unfortunately, I don't believe it is possible to create such a theocracy here on earth. So a society like I enjoy here in the US (and you enjoy down under) is probably about as good as it'll get.

0 Replies

What a great answer, slkshock!

Very unexpected and very enlightening!

0 Replies

I'll second that boomerang.

slkshock - if I could live in a tolerant and fair society that would be perfect Very Happy

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I'll second that boomerang.

slkshock - if I could live in a tolerant and fair society that would be perfect

Goodfielder, that "if I could..." preface seems to imply that you don't feel current Australian society is "tolerant and fair". Admittedly I know little of Australian society (although I've always dreamed of visiting that great land), but do you really think it is not tolerant or fair?

0 Replies

Their country (Oz) as a whole may be tolerant and fair, but some of its citizens - like many democracies of this world - are racial bigots.

0 Replies

Oh, like this really means something.

There is a wide spectrum of conservative thought and interests, just as there is the same for Liberal thought and interests.

From a broad perspective it is much more interesting and cogent that Bush has held together the varied Conservative interests for a goodly number of years, than the possibility that his coalition might be dispersing.

W doesn't like people to tell him what he can or must do and so it is highly questionable as to whether or not Meiers will withdraw from the process. If he does (and I hope he does) then he will have an almost instantaneous reforging of his alignment with the American Right.

All in all, if American political fortunes were a matter of life and death, to which Party would you want to hook your being?

0 Replies

Well, it certainly wouldn't be with someone who wears a Stetson.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Their country (Oz) as a whole may be tolerant and fair, but some of its citizens - like many democracies of this world - are racial bigots.

And so?

Some of the citizens of democratic nations are predatory sex fiends.

Some of the citizens of democratic nations are cannibals.

Some of the citizens of democratic nations are geekish wankers.

Some of the citizens of democratic nations have exceedingly large breasts.

Some of the citizens of democratic nations are the closest thing to what secularists might call SAINTS.

And so?

0 Replies

Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know