Three days ago AP posted a story about a gay ex-couple in New Mexico fighting over custody of a child they adopted together. The court involved ruled that the partner of the adoptive mother does have legal rights and is able to pursue custody.
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/18678067/nm-court-lets-same-sex-partner-seek-child-custody
For someone like me, its a story about the law catching up to new social realities. To the people over at the National Organization for Marriage, it is of course something else entirely.
In a post entitled: "AP: New Mexico Court Lets Same-Sex Partner Seek Child Custody," their only comment is to snipe about a court "defining parenthood away." Their commentators are less laconic.
A representative one by a commenter named Michael C is as follows: "This is absolutely ridiculous. Children have the RIGHT to be raised by their natural parents. Here is wonderful story about a little girl rightfully returned to her natural father after being ripped away from her biological parents."
Where to begin? First off, Michael's notion of the child being taken away from her adoptive mother and given to her back to her biological father is pure fantasy. The story makes no claim that could even remotely support this. Note also that its the father that this person imagines the child being returned to, and not just her general biological parents.
Of course, its the middle sentence that's the real kicker. Children apparently have a right to be raised by their biological parents, in the same fashion that we have the right to a jury of our peers.
How odd it is then that hundreds of thousands of children are adopted and put into foster homes each year. By the state no less! Forget voting, this is the real civil rights crisis of our time.
But I am being facetious of course. And I think it an easy assumption that if asked this poster would be quite puzzled if asked whether adoptive parents should be prosecuted for their wanton violation of human rights. The issue isn't adoption. Its who's doing the adopting.
For someone like this poster, actions aren't good or bad depending on what is done. Its bad based on who's doing it. So adoption isn't good or bad based on some half baked notion of children rights, but on whether icky gay people are involved.
This method of divining morality is unfortunately far too common.
I just want to point this out, it's fine to use sophisticated vocabulary, but you don't have to throw in every 50 cent word you can find just to sound smart. I'm not saying dumb it down, just make it more accessible! We don't come here to read a textbook.
ReplyDeleteWhat sort of words I used would you say are too much or too complicated? I am not being sarcastic or cutting, I am genuinely seeking to make sure my writing is understandable.
DeleteUnfortunately, in this fashion I am merely writing like I talk. I am blessed with a talent for vocabulary, and that can make it hard to communicate with others sometimes without explaining the words I use.