Custom Search

January 04, 2009

Johann Hari | My New Year Resolution is to Lose My Bottle - and Quit Coke

By the time you read this, my head will be thump-thumping - but this is not a standard-issue New Year's Day hangover. No. My New Year's resolution is to finally give up my addiction to two liquids that are trashing the lives of some of the poorest people on earth: bottled water, and Coke. In 2009, I'm determined to lose my bottle.

There's nothing more tempting than to imagine our luxuries appear fully-formed on the supermarket shelf. It seems they come from nowhere, and when we toss them away, they disappear back to nowhere. It's disconcerting to break through this haze and trace them back to their origins. How can something so ordinary and omnipresent - something we all glug down daily - be destructive? But I have finally forced myself to read two new book-length exposés of my favourite drinks.

Since I was a teenager, I have thought drinking water comes in bottles. I don't know when I stopped using the tap. I never paused to think that it costs 10,000 times more to drink from bottles, or to read the shelves full of studies showing that tap water is just as healthy and impossible to tell apart in blind tastings. But I am not alone. Globally, we spend $60bn (£41bn) a year on bottled water. Its sales now surpass beer and milk.

In her book Bottlemania, the investigative journalist Elizabeth Royte traces one of the great scams of our time: why are we paying a fortune for something we have running almost-free into our homes? In 1929, Charles Kettering, the director of General Motors Research, outlined one of the rules of modern consumerism: "Keep the consumer dissatisfied." If the customer is happy with what they've already got, where's the profit? So the bottled water industry began to promote a series of myths. They claimed tap water was filthy, when in the US and Europe it is the safest drinking water on earth. They claimed you need to drink eight glasses of water a day, based on a garbled misreading of a creaky 1940s study. They falsely promised better health and taste.

If the only people being suckered were those of us dumb enough to buy the bottled water, this would be a minor-league scandal - but look at one of the primary sources of mineral water for the developed world: Fiji. Every day, a million litres of freshwater are pumped from an aquifer beneath a rainforest on Vitu Levu and shipped 10,000 miles to Europe and to the US. "This water may come from one of the last pristine ecosystems on earth," the adverts coo - without mentioning that it also helps to destroy it. By the time you factor in making the bottles and shipping this heavy liquid half-way round the world, every bottle of mineral water is - in effect - filled a quarter of the way up with petrol. The fizz might as well be greenhouse gases dissolving into the atmosphere.

And what of the people on the island of Fiji? While we merrily sip their water, a third of Fijians have no clean water at all. There are regular outbreaks of typhoid and dengue fever on the island, culling children and the elderly first.

The bottled water companies claim it is justifiable to take these people's water. They say they are carbon-neutral because they buy "carbon offsets". But as I've argued before, the evidence shows carbon offsets are a con - a way of salving our consciences, not the environment. Then they say they put money back into Fiji. But last July, the government there decided to introduce a tax on the bottled water being shipped off the island to pay for clean water for ordinary Fijians. The bottling companies went ballistic and threatened to shut down factories. The government gave up. The typhoid continues.

And what of my caffeine fix? I would have it running intravenously into my veins 24/7 if I could - but the comedian-activist Mark Thomas has persuaded me, in his excellent new book Belching Out The Devil: Global Adventures With Coca-Cola, that I have to find a different dealer to Coke.

In Carepa in north-western Colombia, Coca-Cola has a fairly typical bottling plant. Until 1994, the workforce was unionised, and successfully bargained for the basic workplace benefits we all want: bonuses, overtime and healthcare. But the corporation wanted to cut costs - and around the same time, the armed gangs arrived. The far-right militia the AUC presents itself as "the defenders of business freedom" in Colombia - they massacre trade unionists.

Soon after they showed up, Enrique Gomez Granado - one of the Coke-plant union leaders - was shot in the face on his doorstep, in front of his wife and kids. Five more union leaders were hunted down and murdered. There was, as Thomas puts it, "a campaign against the union at the Coca-Cola plant". The workers at the factory claim their plant manager would sit outside the factory with AUC paramilitaries, laughing and joking with them. Once the union was destroyed, the managers of the bottling plant promptly slashed the workers' wages: experienced workers went from earning $380 a month to $130.

At first, Coke said they weren't responsible for the behaviour of their subcontractors - even though they own a controlling share in this bottling company. Then they said "we take accusations regarding labour rights violations seriously". But in Carepa, Thomas found that "to this day, the Coca-Cola Company has not investigated the alleged links of Colombian bottling plant managers with the paramilitaries, despite a man being shot dead under their logo". Still the death-threats continue, pledging anyone "bad-mouthing the Coca-Cola Corporation... will be dealt with as they prefer: death, torture, cut into pieces, coup de grace. No more protests!"

This is not a lone horror-story. Thomas found children working for Coke contractors in El Salvador, and workers in Turkey beaten for trying to join a union. But the most striking story is from Plachimada, a village in Kerala, India. In the 1990s Coke opened a plant and began pumping half a million litres a day out of the underground aquifer. Suddenly the water in Plachimada's wells turned bad. A lab report for the BBC found it was now "so acidic it would burn up your insides. Clothes could tear in such water, food will rot, crops will wither". The village's children had to stop going to school and spend all day fetching water from far away.

As compensation, Coke's Indian subsidiary gave the local villagers their left-over industrial sludge to use as fertiliser. Incredibly, another test by the BBC found the "fertilizer" was filled with poisons. The doctors who examined it warned it could cause kidney failure or severe mental disability. Responding to this study, Sunil Gupta, Coca-Cola India's vice-president, said: "It's good for them because they are poor."

Yes, it will be annoying for me not to have my favourite drinks. But it's considerably more annoying to watch your children die of typhoid while your fresh water is being shipped off for the rich to quaff, or to be shot in the face for running a trade union. In 2009, I don't want to drink oil, or blood.

Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world. 

Johann Hari | My New Year Resolution is to Lose My Bottle - and Quit Coke
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/02-9

January 03, 2009

The left can breathe easy. Rick Warren is not Obama's Billy Graham.

The furor over Rick Warren is not about Inauguration Day but what comes after. When Barack Obama announced last month that Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church and the author of "The Purpose Driven Life," would deliver the invocation at Obama's Inauguration (Joseph Lowery, cofounder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, will give the benediction), supporters of gay marriage and abortion rights were stricken. Warren, after all, has been avowedly pro-life throughout his career. He supported Proposition 8, the successful California initiative banning gay marriage. Many on the cultural left worry that in the selection Warren has gained new stature as counselor to presidents. They worry, in other words, that Obama has made Warren the 21st century's Billy Graham.

See An Unholy Analogy
Newsweek - USA

December 21, 2008

Obama And The Gay Community

CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder:

One reason the Rick Warren thing is a big deal is because, after Bill Clinton, the gay community is unusually sensitive to getting the shorter angle of presidential triangulation. It is hard to overstate the optimism and excitement that gays and lesbians felt in 1992. But the optimism deflated spectacularly after "Don't Ask, Don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention President Clinton's sneaky 1996 ad boasting about DOMA, which aired only on Christian radio.

Clinton was willing to say the word "gay" in public and appear in black tie at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, but, in the eyes of the gay political community, his commitment to gay rights vanished both times it counted most.

See Obama And The Gay Community
CBS News, NY -

December 20, 2008

NY Timed Editorial: Civil Unions are "Separate and Not Equal"

Civil unions are an inadequate substitute for marriage. Creating a separate, new legal structure to confer some benefits on same-sex couples neither honors American ideals of fairness, nor does it grant true equality. The results are clearly visible in New Jersey, which continues to deny same-sex couples some of the tangible civil benefits that come with marriage.

Gov. Jon Corzine of New Jersey has long said that he would sign a measure granting the right to marry to couples of the same sex. We are heartened that he has declared that that should happen sooner rather than later.

We hope Mr. Corzine intends to prod legislators into passing such a law early in the 2009 session. That would make New Jersey the first state to legalize marriage for same-sex couples through legislative action. Three other states — Connecticut, Massachusetts and California — have done so through the courts. Unfortunately, California voters approved a ballot measure in November rescinding that right, at least for now.

Mr. Corzine made his statement after a state commission released its final report on New Jersey’s two-year-old civil union law. The commission noted the hurt and stigma inflicted by shutting out gay people from the institution of marriage. It also found that civil unions do not assure gay couples of the same protections, including the right to collect benefits under a partner’s health insurance program and to make medical decisions on behalf of a partner who is unable to do so. The panel concluded unanimously that the state should enact a law to remove the inequities.

We regret that the leaders of the state’s Democratic-controlled Legislature do not view this issue with the same urgency. Senate President Richard Codey, for instance, said recently that progress in civil rights areas “is typically achieved in incremental steps.” We suspect that political expedience is clouding Mr. Codey’s sense of fairness. Next year in New Jersey, the governorship and all seats in the Assembly are up for grabs in an election. Some Republicans already are talking about making their opposition to same-sex marriage a campaign issue.

Governor Corzine typically takes the right side on important issues, but he has been known to retreat in the face of opposition. We hope that’s not the case here. It’s past time for him and for the Democrats in Trenton to find the political courage to extend the right to marry to gay couples.

 See Separate and Not Equal
New York Times, United States 

Jerry Brown's reverse on gay-marriage ban: Is it a game-changer?

Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's reversal on Proposition 8 -- he now is asking the California Supreme Court to reject it -- is the talk of the blog world today. Of course, the pro-gay-marriage forces are happy. But there is a lot of debate about whether Brown's rejection of the voters' will on gay marriage can fly. Jonathan Turley writes:

Brown's position between the earlier and current litigation seems hopelessly conflicted. It would have been more consistent if he refused to defend either the earlier law or current law. Yet, there is the problem of lawyers defending a law that they consider to be unconstitutional. Brown can argue that, once the Court recognize the constitutional right of same-sex couples in the Constitution, it became a problem to have it set aside by popular vote. The earlier law was the result of legislative consensus while this is the product of popular vote. Yet, there status as "law" is the same for the purposes of the Attorney General's office.

 See Jerry Brown's reverse on gay-marriage ban: Is it a game-changer?
Los Angeles Times, CA 

Gay mag names LDS president 'person of the year'

It's time to update LDS President Thomas S. Monson's résumé.

The LDS Church leader now can add "Q Salt Lake Person of the Year" to his list of notable honors, which range from Brigham Young University's "Exemplary Manhood Award" to the Boy Scouts' Silver Beaver prize.

Q Salt Lake , Utah's gay and lesbian magazine, recognized Monson for having the biggest impact on the gay community in 2008. His letter urging Mormons to support California's Proposition 8 helped eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the Golden State.

 See Gay mag names LDS president 'person of the year'
Salt Lake Tribune, United States

December 19, 2008

How the hell did Rick Warren get inauguration tickets?

Barack Obama knows liberals are upset he picked the conservative evangelical preacher to pray at the inauguration. And he doesn't care.
 
By Mike Madden
 
WASHINGTON -- For more than two years, cozying up to Rick Warren has been one of Barack Obama's favorite ways of showing evangelical Christians that he might not be so scary, after all -- and for just as long, palling around with Obama every once in a while has been Warren's way of trying to show more secular-minded people that he's not so bad, either.

So about the only thing less surprising than the outrage that news of Warren's selection to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration is prompting among gay activists, liberals and Obama supporters generally is probably Warren's appearance on the program in the first place. Obama and Warren have often used each other to demonstrate that they'll be willing to listen to people they disagree with -- and yes, also to let everyone know that they'll be willing to anger their friends. This isn't one of those political controversies that pop up out of nowhere without warning; whether they want to admit it or not, it seems Obama's advisors brought on this fight with his own supporters knowing full well what was coming.

Having Warren speak at the inauguration might make more sense for Obama, now that he's been elected, than going to Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum in August in search of evangelical votes did from a campaigning standpoint. When the ballots were counted he only did marginally better among white evangelicals than Gore and Kerry; the idea now, apparently, is to signal that Obama will be a president for all Americans, whether they voted for him on Nov. 4 or not.  See How the hell did Rick Warren get inauguration tickets?

 

December 17, 2008

Past and Present: The Spirit of Harvey Milk


Kevin Cathcart
Executive Director
Lambda Legal

I recently saw the new movie about Harvey Milk and memories of the tragic and electrifying events of 1978 came flooding back — the thrill of seeing an openly gay political leader win an election, the victorious fight against the ugly Briggs Initiative to fire gay teachers in California, the brazen and heartbreaking assassination of Milk and Mayor George Moscone, the spontaneous eruption of anger and outrage in the streets and the emotional candlelight vigil that filled the streets of San Francisco.

As 2008 comes to a close, it might be tempting to conclude that things have not changed that much — we just faced and lost ugly antigay ballot measures in California and three other states, and thousands of people have poured into the streets in nationwide protests.
But that would be the wrong conclusion. We have changed society in ways that are fundamental and far–reaching and, in some respects, exceed the hopes we had in 1978. Our movement has brought greater freedom and dignity to the LGBT community in employment, education, political and civic leadership, health care and family recognition. For example, we eliminated all state sodomy laws, we have marriage equality for same–sex couples in two states with soon–to–come victories in several more, and we have significant laws protecting our relationships in nine additional states. We have made advances we barely thought possible thirty years ago.

No struggle for civil rights moves forward without setbacks. It is true that some things have not changed nearly enough and the year ended with disappointing losses. We have work yet to do.
But as we look back over the year, let's appreciate our successes and approach the exciting opportunities ahead with pride and resolve. Because of Lambda Legal's work in 2008:


  • the California Supreme Court ruled that lesbian patient Lupita Benitez was entitled to be treated like other patient with a similar fertility problem, and that constitutional protections for religious liberty do not excuse unlawful discrimination

  • the State Department finally dropped its ban on employing people with HIV as foreign service officers

  • lesbian and gay high school students in New Jersey and California received justice from the courts, and their schools were held accountable for not protecting them against terrible harassment

  • a transgender–rights ordinance unanimously passed by a county legislature in Maryland went into effect after we and our partners stopped a referendum petition intended to overturn it
Even though marriage in California has since been jeopardized by the passage of Prop 8, we worked with lead counsel National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the ACLU and others to win a magnificent legal decision from the California Supreme Court declaring that the equal protection guarantee of the California Constitution requires that same-sex couples no longer be excluded from marriage, and celebrated 18,000 new marriages in California as a result. The day after passage of Prop 8, we were back in court challenging its validity.

We are finishing the year in a sprint: On December 9, we argued for marriage equality before the Iowa Supreme Court, asking them to uphold the ruling of the lower court that said that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. And we and our colleagues are working through the holidays in our challenge against Prop 8 — our next round of briefs is due to the California Supreme Court right after the new year begins.

As we approach 2009, we are also preparing to work with the incoming administration of President–elect Obama and the 111th Congress to shape new laws to prohibit employment discrimination and hate crimes, to repeal rules that discriminate against LGBT military personnel, and to provide fairness to people living with HIV. And when new laws are enacted, Lambda Legal will be there to make sure they are properly enforced.
In 1978, our civil rights movement felt the mixed emotions generated by political victory followed by a tragic assassination. This year, we have mixed emotions again — there is nothing new about that. But the foundation which our work stands upon is stronger and deeper now than it has ever been.

Harvey Milk was strong, fearless, brilliant and strategic. He believed without question in equality. So do we. As we continue the work, we are keeping his spirit alive.
Our important work would not be possible without your generosity. If you haven't done so already, please consider making a year–end donation to join Voices for Equality.

December 16, 2008

The Strong Religious (And Even Better Non-Religious) Case for Gay ...

Jessica

Vozel

 

Last week, my North Star Writers Group colleague Bob Maistros wrote a column denouncing Lisa Miller’s Newsweek piece on “The Religious Case for Gay Marriage.” He called the piece, among other things, “snarky sophistry” and inferior to a freshman term paper. I teach freshman composition, so I know a bit about what makes an argument drivel and what makes it actually worth listening to. And while her argument has holes, Miller is worth listening to.

 

According to Maistros, for gay Americans and their supporters, “simply to have the argument is a victory.” Victory? Really? That Maistros equates a single, thoughtful biblical analysis of love and love relationships with “the other side” trying to usurp the religious gay marriage debate is ludicrous. The defeat of gay rights legislations in several states last month makes clear who is still in charge. In truth, the gay community doesn’t have much of a reason to celebrate. Sure, there’s a liberal administration about to take office, but not one that is willing to grant them the right to marry. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 in California took away the right to marry that had been granted to them. The “equal footing” that Maistros mentions is non-existent.   

 See The Strong Religious (And Even Better Non-Religious) Case for Gay ...
North Star Writers Group - Grand Rapids,MI,USA

Newest Accessory for Wealthy Socialites: The Gay Husband

Those socialites are a competitive bunch -- and what is a wedding good for if not to rub one's success in the nose of one's rivals. Am I right, ladies?

Or that's my theory, anyway, on the gamesmanship between former New York City socialite Carole Rome and current NYC socialite Jill Zarin, a cast member on the Bravo reality show, The Real Housewives of New York City. Zarin, a close friend (or frenemy, mmm?) was among the chosen few to get an invite to Rome's wedding on Friday to Gov. Charlie Crist.

It just so happens that Zarin has a gay husband. If you don't believe me, wait till the 50-second mark in this video and hear it right from the horse's mouth: See Newest Accessory for Wealthy Socialites: The Gay Husband
Broward New Times, FL 

Charlie Crist and the Electoral Benefits of Marriage

Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, is a former White House correspondent with two decades of experience covering Washington government and politics. Click here for Mr. Brown’s full bio.

Given the way politics works these days, there is little surprise that the buzz about a potential presidential candidate’s late-in-life wedding centers on the electoral benefits of marriage rather than his personal happiness.

Welcome to 21st century America, where politicians’ actions are rarely taken at face value and questioning their motivation is part of the political game.

Charlie Crist, the 52-year-old silver-haired, immaculately dressed, meticulously coiffed and immensely popular governor of Florida, got married this past weekend.

During a period when Republicans have been spectacularly unsuccessful, Mr. Crist has been perhaps the highest-profile exception, winning easily in a state where the national Democratic tide has drowned many fellow party members.

Mr. Crist, who was elected in 2006, has a 68% job approval rating among Floridians, according to a Quinnipiac University poll taken just after last month’s election. In fact, his 60% approval rating among Democrats is probably higher than most Democratic governors among members of their own party in their own states.

Mr. Crist is so popular that Alex Sink, the state’s chief financial officer and the Democrats’ best shot at unseating him, this month indicated she would not challenge the governor for re-election in 2010. That increased the odds even further that he’ll win a second term.

She’s Younger and Wealthier

 See Charlie Crist and the Electoral Benefits of Marriage
Wall Street Journal Blogs - New York,NY,USA

How are same-sex couples a threat to other marriages?

On Sunday, Dec. 7, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center was cited in the Register advocating his bias against equality ("Gay Marriage Goes Before Iowa High Court This Week"). His reference to Iowa's 150 years of history in our great state is distorted and shameful.

Iowa has a rich and proud history of advocating civil rights, even in the face of intolerance. In 1851, Iowa was the third state to repeal its anti-miscegenation law that had denied individual freedom of choice in marriage partners on the basis of race.

t saddens me that people who have gay relatives in healthy, supportive and stable relationships, do not believe we are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities that are ascribed to [heterosexual] relationships. This includes hospital visitation, retirement benefits, family leave, health insurance, living together in nursing homes, and a thousand other rights that are currently denied to my partner and myself.

I am confused as to why my loving relationship with my partner of nearly seven years is somehow considered less valuable than those of other people in unhealthy, abusive, adulterous, or marriages that struggle to last even a couple of years.

I ask the Iowa Family Policy Center and its supporters how the enduring and loving relationship with my partner threatens them?

See How are same-sex couples a threat to other marriages?

DesMoinesRegister.com - Des Moines,IA,USA

 

December 15, 2008

HIV: Still Not Just a "Gay Thing"

What does it take to kill a right-wing myth? Garlic, sunshine, wooden stakes, silver bullets?

 

The truth seems insufficient most of the time.  Right wing myths pop up and persist for years, impervious to social change, thorough debunking, or scientific evidence.  Sometimes it seems that best the reality-based community can do is beat unscientific right wing myths out of the mainstream media, but often all that does is drive the myths into the shadow world of rumor mills, email forwards, and anonymous fliers passed around at church or stuck on car windshields.  I often think that a myth has died, only to see it emerge in the right wing media, indicating that the myth has flourished in channels that protect it from criticism and contrary evidence. 

The myth that AIDS is strictly a gay disease, and that heterosexuals (especially heterosexual men) don't transmit HIV seemed to have lost much of its power.  The myth really began to die in 1991, when Magic Johnson came out about his HIV status.  This announcement was a game-changer, and it forced straight people to deal with the fact that they were not as safe as they thought.  It's sad that it had to happen that way, but that's human nature -- if we  have a narrative and a face to put on a story, it seems more real to us than statistics ever could.  People my age, no matter how hetero they felt, saw HIV as a reality that had to be grappled with in their own lives.  HIV testing and condom usage did not seem to be gay things to us, but part of the life of anyone, straight or gay, who was sexually active.   

The CDC recently released a report that shows that heterosexual transmission of U.S. HIV rates only second to male-to-male sexual transmission, and even though the gap between the two is widening up, straight people having straight sex constitute 31% of new transmissions.  The perception that straight people had in the 90s -- that we do run a risk and should protect ourselves -- still reflects a reality.  But the myth that HIV is strictly "a gay thing" has re-emerged from the shadowy world of rumor and email forwarding and is poking its head out in the right wing media.   

In short order, I saw two right wing pundits pushing the idea that HIV is "a gay thing", and using this to justify appalling homophobia.  I suspect the recent kerfuffle over the passage of Proposition 8 in California caused this, as it seems to have stripped away the squawking about "preserving traditional marriage" and exposed the raw bigotry behind the amendment.  Left to defend plain old bigotry, right wing pundits are reaching for hoary old myths, including those centering around HIV.   

 See HIV: Still Not Just a "Gay Thing"
AlterNet, CA 

December 13, 2008

No home for gay adoption ban

A child protection investigator believed that they "needed, and deserved, a good Christmas."

They were John Doe and James Doe, a 4-year-old boy and his 4-month-old brother. They had been removed from their Miami-Dade County home because ... here's why:

The 4-year-old clearly was the main caretaker of the baby. The older brother had ringworm, but his medicine was unopened and past the expiration date. It took two weeks for him to speak. He hoarded food until his foster parent showed him that there was plenty to eat in the house.

With little notice, these boys were brought to a home that had fostered other children, though none as damaged as these brothers. It was Dec. 11, 2004. As one person who reviewed the case said, "On that December evening, John and James left a world of chronic neglect, emotional impoverishment and deprivation to enter a new world, foreign to them, that was nurturing, safe, structured and stimulating."

Two years later, the foster parent wanted to be an adoptive parent. No one else had asked to adopt the brothers. But the state said no, because this foster parent is a gay man named Frank Gill. Florida prohibits gay and lesbian couples and individuals from adopting. It is the strictest such law in the country.

Mr. Gill challenged the ban. On Nov. 24, three weeks after Floridians put a ban on same-sex marriage in the state constitution, Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman struck down the 31-year-old adoption ban - the state will appeal - and allowed Mr. Gill to adopt the brothers, now 8 and 4. Mr. Gill's partner is a foster parent to another boy, in the same home, and he also may move to adopt.

Florida has financial problems, real-estate problems, employment problems and leadership problems. But this ban is a moral problem, even though backers claim that it maintains some sort of higher moral order in Florida. "Gays can love and care, but what is best for the children?" asked John Stemberger, the personal injury lawyer who heads up the Florida Family Policy Council and led the campaign for the same-sex marriage ban. Gay and lesbian adoption, he said, is "not best for society."

For that argument to be true, however, society would have to want to hurt children. The children at issue in challenges to Florida's ban are not the ones adoptive parents want. In 2004, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a challenge to the ban by six gay men. One is a pediatric nurse who had taken three HIV-positive children. All became free of the virus. Having pulled that off, he wanted the reward of fatherhood, not just legal guardianship. The court deadlocked 6-6 on the question of whether adoption is a fundamental right that government cannot restrict.

But the Miami-Dade state court ruling is different. Judge Lederman based her decision on the welfare of children. "The challenged statute," she wrote, "in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and, in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect."

Mr. Stemberger, though, has a conspiracy theory: The state doesn't try hard enough to place children whom gay men want to adopt. The Department of Children and Families "has an internal social agenda" of not pushing foster children of gay parents for adoption by heterosexuals. He referred me to Gwenn Picerne, who runs a small private adoption agency in Volusia County.

But in an interview, Ms. Picerne said, "I don't have statistics" to back up the charge. It is a charge, by the way, that DCF Secretary George Sheldon denies. While Ms. Picerne says that she has had "personal conversations" with some DCF caseworkers, she recalls only "a couple" of examples when she believes that the agency kept some foster children off-limits.

Since Ms. Picerne has adopted six children, I don't question her sincerity about wanting the best for kids. When it comes to state law, however, I'd rather go with Judge Lederman.

Randy Schultz is the editor of the editorial page of The Palm Beach Post. His e-mail address is schultz@pbpost.com

See No home for gay adoption ban
Palm Beach Post,  United States -

Blog Archive

Search here for LGBT News

Custom Search