We Take Requests, Too
Reader Michelle has asked us to make fun of Michael Reagan’s latest NewsMax column, which she aptly describes as “a steaming pile of B.S.” We’re only too happy to oblige:
Adoption Outrage in Massachusetts
Michael Reagan
Thursday, March 16, 2006For over 100 years the adoption arm of the Catholic Charities organization of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston has provided adoption services for the state’s adoption agency, helping to find homes for some of the most-difficult-to-place children.
It was a valuable and almost irreplaceable service to the community and it has now been destroyed thanks to one of those politically correct laws enacted under pressure by a minority group with political influence that far outweighs their numbers.
And if you think he’s talking about the rich people who benefit the most from Bush’s tax cuts, you’re wrong.
Under Massachusetts law it is unlawful to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Forbidding gay and lesbian couples from adopting children is therefore considered to be a violation of the law.
Under the ancient doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, however, homosexual activity of any kind is deemed to be gravely immoral and forbidden under any circumstances. The Church cannot sanction or participate in recognizing same-sex marriage by granting homosexual couples the right to adopt children.
Under the ancient doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, every household must contain both a ding-dong and a hoo-ha.
Thanks to demands from the gay and lesbian community the full weight of the state came crashing down on Boston’s Catholic Charities organization, which was ordered to get with it and ship innocent children to gay and lesbian households.
Say, maybe that’s why the Olsen twins are so screwed up- they were raised by a bunch of barely-closeted dudes in a (full) house in San Francisco.
“Don’t make the same mistakes we did! Ban gay adoption!!!”
That they could not do, and remain Catholic, so Boston has lost a valuable ally in the struggle to find homes for some of the most-difficult-to-place youngsters.
This is an outrage brought on by homosexual activists. It’s all about them, it’s not about religion, it’s not about anybody’s beliefs, and it’s not about the welfare of children.
Neither is it about broadening the number of households available for adoption. No, it’s all about the homosexuals’ selifish desire to have butt sex on Jesus’ grave.
They want to force all organizations including religions to accept their abnormal lifestyle as normal.
It’s not going to happen no matter how many laws they pressure politicians to enact.
They want people to accept the idea that gay families are no different than heterosexual families; that children having two daddies or two mommies – instead of a father and a mother – is normal. They want same-sex marriages to be equal with traditional marriages, and they want government to guarantee it.
In other words, they want to be treated with the same respect and dignity that heterosexual couples receive.
What a bunch of homos.
They cite the high divorce rate between heterosexuals as proof that heterosexual marriage can be harmful to children. They say that this proves that gay and lesbian people should be able to adopt children to keep them from suffering from the trauma of broken homes. They ignore the obvious fact that exposing children to an abnormal home life can be devastating to children who need only to look around them and see the majority of their friends living in normal heterosexual households to recognize that they are the odd ones out.
I agree. Similarly, children adopted by biracial couples will look around and see that all the other mommies and daddies have the same skin color, while their parents look like Oreo Cookie ice cream. I think we should ban biracial couples from adopting too, lest their children feel different from their peers.
If we want to stop homosexuals and lesbians from pointing to the heterosexual divorce rate, and pleading “give us a shot at raising children,” then we have stop the destructive behavior that culminates in divorce.
What this tells us is not that heterosexual divorce justifies gay adoption, but that we have to start taking our marriage vows seriously.
Y’hear that, Rush? He’s calling you out!
Too many couples take their marriage vows with their fingers crossed, seeing marriage more as a date than a lifetime arrangement. So when the going gets a little rough – as it always will and always does – they just walk away and their children become victims of their selfishness.
Of course divorce harms children, but the remedy is not to fend them off on a same-sex couple living a freakish lifestyle.
No, the solution is to send them off to straight couples who live freakish lives. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, anyone?
The remedy is to accept marriage as it is meant to be – a permanent commitment – and if a couple cannot make that commitment they should forget about tying the knot.
Sooner or later, there is going to be a massive backlash against the intense pressure homosexual activists are applying in many areas of our national life. We’ve already seen evidence that it is beginning to happen in, of all places, Hollywood, where we just saw the Motion Picture Academy members turn thumbs down on a best-picture award for the pro-gay movie “Brokeback Mountain” despite weeks of incredible lobbying by the gay and lesbian community. Even Hollywood had to say, “Gosh, we’ve got to have some standards here.”
What the fell are you talking about? Brokeback Mountain was one of five movies nominated for Best Picture, and it won the awards for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay- hardly a repudiation of the film.
OK, Michelle, I did my best to make light of this moronic column. Hope it brightened your day a wee bit.
Brad-
Are you seriously implying that Tom Cruise is part of a straight couple?
Wasn’t Michael Reagan adopted? Wasn’t he adopted by Ronald Reagan and his FIRST WIFE, Jane Wyman? Could Michael Reagan possibly be touchy about the subject of broken marriage vows and adoption? Could he possibly be overcompensating? Okay, I don’t really think so. I just thought it was funny that he has a bee in his bonnet about this.
Hey! That’s my church!
I’m really rather saddened that the Catholic Church doesn’t let gay couples adopt.
But I’m also a bit concerned that Massachusetts doesn’t have an exemption for religious groups in its rules.
“Don’t have an abortion! There are so many couples seeking to adopt… um, except those gay couples. Just ignore them.”
I wonder what a conservative would do if you presented the following dilemma: A young woman will either have an abortion or carry the pregnancy full-term and have a gay couple adopt the baby. Which is more important? Life or straightitude?!
“Of course divorce harms children, but the remedy is not to fend them off on a same-sex couple living a freakish lifestyle.”
To the best of my knowledge, divorce doesn’t result in the forced adoption of the ex-couple’s children. What color is the sky in this guy’s world?
Plus, I don’t think “fend” means what he thinks it does.
Andrew, would not a religious exception to the state’s adoption policies constitute a unconstitutional endorsement of religion? I think it would, in that the state would be saying that religious organizations deserve special privileges not afforded to other groups.
Gawd, what a freakish column. I guess Michael Reagan believes big daddy Ron, a conservative icon and former Hollyweird actor, viewed his first uttering of the marital vows “more as a date than a lifetime arrangement.”
He and Michael Savage ought to just come out of the closet and quit picking on other gay folks. I mean, seriously, look at his picture. No straight guy can color coordinate a shirt and tie like that.
Andrew, this is the problem with allowing religious groups to participate in civic roles.
Adoption is not a religious matter. It is a civil matter. The state has the responsiblity to care for children who lack parents able to do so. That falls under the whole “promote the general welfare” bit in the Preamble.
If you want to participate in the civic sphere, you play by the civic sphere’s rules. If your religious rules don’t permit you to do that, then stay OUT of the civic sphere. Massachusetts has a law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the church doesn’t like that, the church doesn’t have to participate in providing civil services – it can go back to tending to the souls of its flock like it’s friggin’ supposed to.
I’m sorry if I seem a bit snippy about this, but this has been the big, flaming 800 pound gay gorilla in the room that people have been ignoring ever since Bush started in on his “faith-based initiatives” twaddle. Churches have different standards than civil governments do. But, just like ANY group, if you want state or federal funding, you play by state or federal rules. Heck, schools that want federal education dollars have to follow the requirements of NCLB, regardless of how they feel about it. The government doesn’t FORCE them to do it – the state could just refuse the money if it really felt strongly enough about it. It’s the same deal for religious groups.
I am glad the church in MA has chosen to get out of the adoption business. I don’t want to have to follow the strictures of Catholicism if I want to adopt or go to a hospital or what have you. And one of the joys of being an American is that I don’t have to…unless I’m unlucky enough to live in an area where a Catholic hospital is the only one available – or I get stuck in a Catholic orphanage as a minor child. Religion needs to stay OUT of civic management as much as possible.
Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe wrote that exact same column last week. I couldn’t even make it past the second paragraph… I give you a LOT of credit for the intestinal fortitude to stick it out.
(Hey, I just used “stick it out” in the same sentence as the word “intestinal”. Does that mean I’m ineligible for adoption now?)
They ignore the obvious fact that exposing children to an abnormal home life can be devastating to children who need only to look around them
so should adoption agencies not send kids to families that are christian fundamentalists?
they have pretty abnormal home lives.
Thank you, Brad. It did make me laugh this morning. It scares me to think that this issue is next on the Christian Right’s agenda. My state currently allows gays and lesbians to adopt children from the foster care system with no problems. I fear the fundamentalists will push to change that soon.
the remedy is not to fend them off on a same-sex couple
Nah, it’s not that he doesn’t know what “fend” means. It’s just a bad transcription of the 18th-century “long s.” Either way, Michael Reagan is not in fauour of fame-fex adoptiue families.
Nah, it’s not that he doesn’t know what “fend” means. It’s just a bad transcription of the 18th-century “long s.” Either way, Michael Reagan is not in fauour of fame-fex adoptiue families.
Marry, younge Michael hath been fmoaking ye euil Cracke Rocke.
Remember that the 42-member board of Catholic Charities voted unanimously to continue handling adoption by same-sex couples. Over the past 20 years, Catholic Charities has placed 13 children (out of 720) with same-sex children.
Seven members of the board, including its chairman, resigned in protest at the bishop’s attempt to stop gay adoption from Catholic Charities.
Ah yes, another holier than thou asshat commentator at NewsMax? Say it isn’t so!
Also, one that is riding on the coattails of his still-warm corpse of a father? NO! That would never happen on NewsMax!
How can Michael “the real asshole of the family” Reagan justify the crap that he’s posted in that single homophobic diatribe of factless wonder? When will someone walk up to Michael, bitch-smack the living shit out of him and show him the facts surrounding same-sex adoptions and the long term results which show well-rounded and intelligent young adults?
Sadly, never.
Let’s not overlook the clue to the next wingnut agenda item: banning divorce. It’s back to the ’50s with no abortion, no divorce, no gays allowed.
Ooh, I hope they blow their wad/show their hand too soon and try to ban divorce while at the same time restricting access to contraception (which they are already doing).
The remedy is to accept marriage as it is meant to be – a permanent commitment – and if a couple cannot make that commitment they should forget about tying the knot.
but I thought sex outside of marraige was bad? and so is living together? and aren’t we supposed to be getting married young and starting our families, not caring about our careers and our designer kids like those latte liberals?
I don’t understand. Somehow, all of the conservative dictates for our lives don’t make sense. How should I know what to do?
Marry, younge Michael hath been fmoaking ye euil Cracke Rocke.
My word, that’s some funny stuff there, Gavin. Consider yourself smiley-face-emoticon’d.
“Ooh, I hope they blow their wad/show their hand too soon and try to ban divorce.”
Yes, because then the Democrats will get REALLY mad. And we all know what that means.
Nothing?
Sod-all?
They’ll cry havoc, and let slip the chickens of spinelessness.
Ever been attacked by a boneless chicken? It’s not a pretty sight.
Nah, I wasn’t even thinking about the Democrats. I was thinking about just average people getting pissed. Because I guess wingnuts wanting to allow *cashiers* (not just pharmacists) to decide not to sell contraceptives isn’t enough to get people pissed off, so something will have to happen that inconveniences *men*. Not that I am bitter.
This is what the episcopacy gets for not listening to the laity.
O’Reilly (broken clock, 2x a day…) was correct- the children are the important part of the equation.
Various Catholic groups have done a lot of good work in adoption, so I hope this situation changes for the better.
No, dreamweasel, it means you have a hernia.
Anne, I don’t think they’re too shy about their intentions to ban divorce, it’s just that no one’s really paying much attention.
The genuinely frightening fringe of the Christian right starts to bleed over into the mainstream on things like this.
Not much to add, just that Michael Reagan gives idiots a bad name .. great blog, though
Let’s ban atheists from adopting. And muslims. And Unitarians. Let’s not stop until only Christians married in an approved Churches can adopt.
Don’t fool yourself, this is what they want.
Anne, I don’t think they’re too shy about their intentions to ban divorce, it’s just that no one’s really paying much attention.
Yeah, I know — it needs to get more attention, I guess is what I mean.
I don’t know about you guys, but I’d jump at the opportunity to have dirty buttsex on Jesus’ grave.
Yeah, I know — it needs to get more attention, I guess is what I mean.
Oh, I am so totally there with you on that.
What is the trick to getting the media to pay attention to the genuinely fascist, Christian Reconstructionist elements that have attatched themselves to the far right fringe of the mainstream Christian movement in America?
D’oh! That was me above.
I hate it when I do that.
We all hate it when you do that…
When will someone walk up to Michael, bitch-smack the living shit out of him and show him the facts surrounding same-sex adoptions and the long term results which show well-rounded and intelligent young adults?
Somehow, I don’t think showing him the facts will matter. He’ll just dismiss them out of hand as biased because they’re suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Actually, when I was raised Catholic, went to 12 years of Catholic schools, including university, the subject of homosexuality didn’t really come up. I mean, sure they were fornicating, but homosexual fornication wasn’t really any bigger deal than “regular” fornication.
To Catholics, not being baptized was worse than sinning: sinners could be forgiven. So by Reagan’s rules, the Catholic agency would not be able to adopt out to non-Catholics. And that would be OK with him.
Brad, you were way out of line when you attributed to gays the “selfish desire to have butt sex on Jesus’ grave.” Shame on you. How could you forget the felching?
Similar experiance to mine, Dorothy (though the “not baptized” bit was less important- Vat II’s take on Aquinas’ “Ignorance as a cause of sin” [Prima Secundæ Partis, Q. 76] was said to mitigate that somewhat), though I went to public schools (and a “Post-Mormon” group-sponsored college before transferring to my current place of learning…).
How come traditional Zuni marriages, which allowed homosexuals to marry, doesn’t count as traditional marriage?
And how come 1,000 year-old mesoamerican beliefs that orphans should be sacrificed to Tlaloc aren’t as compelling as Reagan’s 1,000 year-old beliefs?
Priceless! The Catholics take their ball and go home, yet it’s the gay people’s fault! Ha ha ha! Damn, he’s witty!
Wot? There hasn’t been already? Coulda fooled me….
BTW, ye olde stuck italics tag somewheres….
I didn’t think Jesus had a grave.
I remember something about a cave, with a stone rolled over the mouth. And him “being risen”, whatever that meant. And when they opened the cave, if he saw his shadow there was 6 more weeks of winter, or something.
*ahem*
No, it’s all about the homosexuals’ selifish desire to have butt sex on Jesus’ empty grave.
Fucking heathens.
then we have stop the destructive behavior that culminates in divorce.
Is this some variation on the “Keep shopping dammit or else the terrorists win” argument?
“Stay in that loveless marraige or else T3H GH3Y WINS!!!1!!(one)”
Wow–if i can keep conservatives in awful, loveless marriages just by being gay, it just completes me! As I sit around, unmarried, dateless and bored, I’ll have the satisfaction of picturing all the sap Rethuglicans, thinking of their significant others as “lousy, two-bit whoremonger(s)” or “trampy, bitter, fat tart(s).” Man! That makes me feel tingly all over!
Proudly, We Take No Requests.
Editor
http://www.wtnrradio.com
WeTakeNoRequests Radio