[promoted by BooMan]
State Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) added on a last-minute amendment to SB 6 (reforming Texas’ Child Protective Services agency) to forbid LGBT parents from being foster or adoptive parents. One of the most incredible provisions is a requirement that prospective parents be required to answer questions about their sexual orientation! This contradicts professional practice, to my knowledge, of what a Cerified Social Worker does in a “home study” (the background investigation of prospective foster/adoptive parents).
What’s next? Pink Triangles? Loyalty oaths?
read on…
First some more background information. Here’s the presser from the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas:
___
RADICAL LEGISLATOR DEALS MAJOR BLOW TO TEXAS CHILDREN
For Immediate Release
April 19, 2005
LGRL of Texas
AUSTIN, TX- Texas families, particularly children, took a potentially devastating hit today from the Texas House of Representatives. Legislators voted to approve an extremely controversial, expensive, and damaging amendment to SB6, the bill designed to overhaul the child protective services system in our state. The amendment, filed by Rep. Robert Talton (R-Pasadena), bans same-sex couples from serving as foster parents.
Experts say the move will cost the state millions of dollars and seriously limit the pool of eligible foster parents, which is already grossly inadequate to deal with the number of children in the system.
Randall Ellis, Executive Director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, said Texas children are being used as political pawns. “This amendment is bad policy, plain and simple,” Ellis said. “It’s bad for Texas children. It’s bad for Texas families, and it’s bad for the hard-working LGBT people of this state. Mr. Talton has taken aim at the LGBT community of Texas, and thousands of children are now caught in the crosshairs.”
Studies consistently show that the children of LGBT parents grow up to be just as healthy and stable as children raised in heterosexual homes.
Before today’s vote, the C.P.S. overhaul bill had already been approved by the Texas Senate, but without the anti-gay amendment. The amended version must pass on a third reading before the House, then it will go to a conference committee, where members of both houses will meet to hammer out a compromise bill. The amendment could be taken out at that point. The final version of the bill will then go back for a final vote of both houses, but this vote is seen largely as a formality.”
___
As an adoptive parent, I am deeply offended by this. I wrote to the Texas Freedom League and LGRL to suggest they should make common cause with mainstream foster/adoption advocacy groups to fight this. There are religiously-affiliated groups that discriminate in placement of children in foster care or for adoption, but many who don’t. Some (the Methodists come to mind) advocate for LGBT parents of foster and adopted children, and place a child where s/he will have a home and be loved, without regard to the sexual orientation of the parents.
We have seen Jeb Bush and the state legislature push this issue in Florida — children in need there are now more limited in the number of families available in the pool who can give them a home. I know the issue has been pushed in other state legislatures. What is the law right now in your state?
This happens to be a Texas-specific action item today, but surely is an issue throughout the country. Because there is not one national set of laws governing child welfare and adoption, but rather 51 (at least – – not to leave out Puerto Rico and the territories), the right is pushing this in each state. It’s on their “to-do” list, and they’re working it hard, I’m sure.
Folks, this is truly an issue of children. Every state in our country has children who NEED a stable family environment, either temporarily, or often, a “forever family”. Limiting the number of eligible families is WRONG, it’s costly, and it’s REALLY BAD public policy. This is driven by narrow ideology, and genuinely harms children. and of course, it is further discriminatory against LBTG people.
We may have people here who are part of an adoption triad, perhaps some of you were in foster care, or now have or have had a foster child in your home. There may be LGBT members here. And for all the rest of us, this is an issue of progressive versus regressive.
So, what do we do? The Texas-Kos list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/texas_kos/) has been informed and invited to contact our state legislators, but I pose this as an issue to the community. It’s part of the overall agenda against GLTG people, but in this case, actually factually really affects children NEGATIVELY. And I strongly suspect they’re doing this in YOUR STATE, too.
I’m open to suggestions for action.
Pax.
[posted earlier this morning also at DKos]
Of course it’s a bout kids. But those dolts don’t see that… they’re trying to save the little tykes from those lesbo/gay God-less perverts.
Let ’em languish in state facilities or in awful hetero homes where they’re neglected or even abused. At least they won’t be exposed to the worst sins!
It’s pathetic. I hope our contingent of Texans…we have quite a few…have something to say about this.
blush Promoted by Booman… I don’t know what to say.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
What?!
I wasn’t even aware of this. Had no idea, and this little peckerhead Talton’s area isn’t too far from me.
This is absurd. I’ll start fighting it by letter writing, ASAP. Thanks for the heads up on this, Tom. How extremely infuriating.
Will heterosexual prospective adoptive parents have to answer questions about their sex lives? Are only couples who practice male-superior missionary sex able to adopt children? ‘Coz you know, the Supreme Court may have said that what people do in their own bedrooms is their own affair (pun intended) but in Florida already and Texas potentially, even behind closed doors, children hear things.
Fuck Fuck Fuck. Did nobody read my fucking privacy manifesto? It’s none of their goddamned business. The only questions they should be asking is whether you can provide love and guidance to kids who need it.
Retch.
No matter what the repukes say they really don’t give a flying fuck about children period. With the advent of bush getting in office they’ve let loose all their weird, fucked up, sex obsessed ideas from their repressed and crazed minds. Every goddam thing relates to sex to them somehow and not in a good way.
I don’t think we’ll get anything like that here in Ca. at least I hope to hell not.
Speaking of foster parents. Has anyone everyone done a study on how many rich people become foster parents? I never seem to hear about the rich and richer doing anything like this. You’d think all those rich republicans yammering about kids all the time would all have half a dozen kids they’ve taken in, right?
Lorraine, you forgot to mention masturbation….as that is a horrible no/no also ..is that question going to get asked too? Cause according to I believe the Texas sex ed program for teens masturbation is seen as something that is very wrong cause it leads to such self gratification that you become very selfish and lose interest in the other sex…so I guess that might also lead to no interest in kids because your to busy being ‘selfish’ ya know. These people real sicko’s.
Remember Jocelyn Elders (that’s her name, right?) who advocated masturbation as a substitute for risky sex? And how Clinton fired her? I lost respect for Clinton after he caved on the controversy. Her idea was brilliant, if a bit bold for the times, sigh.
How great is this: That you have a Texas Kos mailing list! wow.
Don’t thank me – – KrazyPuppy got it started (I think he’s in Houston or Austin).
visit to see – – it’s not hard to start a group on Yahoo.
The Port Angeles for Dean mailing list I started in July 2003 is still going strong… have about 90+ members still. But it’d be cool to have a statewide list for Kos members.
The bill will need to be worked out in a House-Senate conference committee because the previously passed Senate version of the bill had no such provision.
While it is possible that Elliot Naishtat (D-Austin) who was a co-sponsor of the original legislation will be on the conference committee, the best hope for killing this is to prevail on the Lt Gov and your State Senator to force the House to back off.
If you live in Texas, contact your State Senator immediately. Remind him or her that a similar Arkansas bill was declared unconstitutional last December, and that the provision threatens the whole Child Protective Services Act – an Act which although flawed by privatization – is badly needed.
American Statesman. And a great editorial too. Excerpts and links in my Fight Back! diary, which also has the link for figuring out who your Senator and Rep is (not easy after DeLay got through with us) and their contact info.
unfortunately this thing is sure to pass…however, something like this screams UNCONSTITUTIONAL! I don’t see how discriminating a group of people in the adoption process over private sexual activity could be constitutional. The SC already ruled sodomy laws null…if it’s purely a matter of what they call “deviant sexual activity” then with the sodomy ruling, clearly a double standard would be in place if you didn’t allow men who practice sodomy to adopt but other men who practice s&m. As far as sexual orientation, I don’t see how thought plays any role in adoptions….maybe we shouldn’t allow hippies to adopt, or communists, or atheists etc…I don’t think this law would pass the constitutionality test in any reasonable non-DeLay court.
Oh God(ha) atheists…don’t give them any ideas considering how the repugs feel about them, that’ll be the next question/bill ..hell why not just make the bill to say that only christian republicans adopt and be done with it. Might be easier for them to write whose eligible than who isn’t, right?
Unless Mr. Talton wishes to discuss other reasons for his marked interest in the intimate lives of his fellow Texans, this bill appears to be clearly related to some religious belief of his, a belief which he seeks to impose on anyone interested in caring for or adopting a child.
Perhaps his efforts would best be spent working toward a national referendum on the question of whether the US should formally declare itself a Theocracy based on his particular sect.
If it passes, he will not have to bother with state laws such as this, as his sect no doubt has already detailed which sexual activity may be engaged in by whom, with whom, and under what circumstances.