The Commonwealth of Virginia's Ultimate Blog

Sunday, June 19, 2005

Tim Kaine and Gay Adoption

We've been doing our best to point out differences between the candidates on a variety of issues. That is, of course, when we can figure out what the candidates think.

From Daily Kos, regarding Tim Kaine's appearance at a fundraiser for Jay Fisette.
He talked about how Jay [Fisette] and Adam [Ebbin] and so many in the room had lived through discrimination. He acknowledged that he could not fully understand, that he knew what it was like to be attacked for his political position, but not for merely being who he was. he talked about the effort in the immediately past legislative session to bar the right of gays to adopt (and I note that when he walked into the room, the very first thing he did was go over to a couple of gay men who were present with their sons and greet them). He talked about how they were able to stop that from passing, and that he is being attacked for that around the state, although obviously NOT in N Virginia.

He talked about the importance of this election, about the stark difference between the two tickets, about how all the positive things that the Warner administration had been opposed by Kilgore and his running mates.

It was not a canned speech. It was not the same as last night, although he covered a fair number of the same points.

My sense is that the gays who might otherwise vote Republican will be turning out in large number for Kaine this fall. We have a fair number in Arlington, and the state's gay and bi-population is concentrated in Northern Virginia. I also sense that Kaine will not back away from what he supports, whichy is equal civil rights for Gays. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out in Virginia.
Sounds clear. However, on January 31st, 2005, Tim Kaine said the following things:
Kilgore and Kaine said they support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Both said they disapprove of adoptions by gay couples.
Hmmm. Talking one way in Arlington, and another way downstate?

Also, check out this old post for Mr. Kaine's evolving stance, or appearance of evolving stance, on gay marriage.

There's an implication in the comment left that I have quoted selectively. I disagree with that assertion, but want it to be clear. Here's the full quote:
Kilgore and Kaine said they support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages. Both said they disapprove of adoptions by gay couples.

But Kaine said that when he was a missionary in Honduras, he witnessed orphans who were treated "hellaciously." As a consequence, he would favor allowing individual gays or lesbians to adopt, so long as they create a loving environment, he said.
The issue and focus of the post is whether Mr. Kaine is communicating different things to different communities. At least one person at Mr. Fisette's fundraiser thinks that Tim Kaine is seeking "equal civil rights" for gays. If that's the case, fine, and we can debate the merits. If it isn't, then fine, and we can debate the merits. The issue is that we just aren't sure.

And on the merits, the Virginia Supreme Court has already given out-of-state gay couples the right to have both parents listed on a new birth certificate. If the next step is not an effort to have the same rights granted to in-state gay couples, then I don't know anything about public interest litigation.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what does this prove exactly other than that you're attempting to decieve people here? If you'd post more than a few careful snippets, you'd note that Kaine's position is that he doesn't think gay individuals should be barred from adopting simply because they are gay (making a special "heterosexuals only" litmus test). Gay couples cannot adopt because there is no such legal entity under Virginia law as a gay couple, and Kaine doesn't support making such a legal special entity.

Sometimes, your eagerness to smear someone trips you up.

8:59 PM

Blogger criticallythinking said...

Anonymous argues that you can be pro-gay but be against adoption by gay couples. He explains that Kaine is making a simple legal argument that gays can't legally be "couples" so they should be able to adopt.

If all Kaine is saying is that we shouldn't take an individuals private sexual preference into account when ruling on adoptions, then he isn't really taking a "pro-gay" stance.

I imagine that most people reading the first account would be shocked to find that Kaine in fact thinks that two gay people should not have the right to enter into legal partnerships of any form.

They have previously called such a stance anti-gay and bigoted. While they may hold their nose at one of their own political persuasion having that position, they won't be enthusiastic about it.

I understand how people who think there is something morally or naturally "unnatural" or bad about practicing homosexuality would then seek to ban civil unions and gay marriage. I have yet to understand how people who say that gay sex is natural, and that homosexual couples are just like heterosexual couples, can then be against civil unions or gay marriage.

It's like people saying Abortion is simply the removal of tissue, but then argue that we should make it rare. Would we argue that a woman can remove a mole, but we hope to convince most of them not to do so?

My OPINION is that when people argue that there is nothing wrong with something, but then argue that it should be limited, or restricted, that either they are taking positions for political advantage rather than true conviction, and/or they realise there IS something wrong with it, but don't want to admit it.

12:07 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home