A Rewrite of SB 68
Sometimes, when I read the text of legislation, I'm struck by the level of indirectness and obfuscation. Take Kentucky Senate Bill 68, for example. If you didn't know some legislative history in the state -- most especially the Marriage Protection Act -- you might not immediately get the point of this bit of legislation-ese:
prohibit the approval of foster care, relative caregiver services, or adoption of a child by an applicant who is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage that is legally valid in Kentucky
Why couldn't the authors of the bill just say what they meant? Why avoid the obvious point of the bill, which is to prohibit adoption by gay people?
Well, since Senator Gary Tapp doesn't know how to be direct, I think we should help him. Herewith, a more direct rewrite of the bill. See what you think:
... prohibit the approval of foster care, relative caregiver services, or adoption of a child by any queer or couple of queers, no matter the quality of their relationship or the health of their home life.
Drunks are okay, as are drug addicts, as long as you can hide it from the child welfare officer. Ditto for spouse abusers and child abusers. Porn addicts? No problem -- we wouldn't want to get in your business.
Divorced heterosexuals are fine, even if they've been married and divorced every two years for life. So are persons with no jobs, no savings, no self-esteen, and no prospects for any of the above. Persons doing foster care for the money are fine, as are relatives estranged from everyone in the family because they are, frankly, crazy.
In fact, as long as you are publicly heterosexual, it doesn't matter WHAT you do in private, you can still bring a defenseless child into your mess, and we'll just look the other way.
But by God, we don't care how solid your home life, or how healthy your emotional life, or how unassailable your parenting skills -- if you're homosexual, we're going to keep children away from you, no matter what.
Because, after all ... this is Kentucky. We have our standards.
::
Tuesday, February 17, 2009 at 8:01AM
Reader Comments (3)
Also need to change the title of the bill -- "No Kids for Queers"
Might as well be direct in your bigotry.
Bruce -
Fantastic job of calling a duck a duck! I'm disgusted that this idiot is actually my representative!
Joshua
Leave it to KY lawmakers to create new problems with legislation and ignore the ones we already have.