An individual may not adopt if the court in which the petition for adoption is filed determines that any of the following apply:So it is now up to the state of Ohio to investigate and determine who is or isn't homosexual, bisexual or transgendered? (I'd love to know how many children each of these people have adopted and/or fostered. I would also love to know if any of them have any glbt kids.)
(1) The individual is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
(2) The individual is a step-parent of the child to be adopted and is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
(3) The individual resides with an individual who the court determines is a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender individual.
(C) As used in this section:
(1) "Bisexual" means an individual who engages in sexual activity with members of both sexes.
(2) "Homosexual" means an individual who engages in sexual activity with another individual of the same sex.
(3) "Transgender" means an individual who may be classified according to an accepted nosology, such as the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, as having a gender identity disorder, or characterized by either of the following:
(a) A strong and persistent cross-gender identification;
(b) Persistent discomfort with that individual's sex or sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.
This goes beyond the parent(s) too-- what if the adoptive parent(s) already have a glbt child in the house? What if they have a gay friend or relative living with them? What if they have gays in their neighborhood? I'm surprised that they don't say that any adoptive or foster parent who has gay friends or relatives is ineligible to adopt/foster-- they may have already contracted gay cooties!
Quixotically, this also flies in the face of the firm beliefs many anti-gay people hold, that homosexuality isn't "real" or that it can be changed if you love Jesus enough. I'd love to see them follow this to its logical conclusion-- openly pushing for legislation that removes ALL children from the homes where a glbt person lives. Establish a task force and do a house-by-house search. I suppose that means they'd also need a state registry for all gay Ohioans...oh, wait, why not just add us all to the state Sex Offender Registry? That is what they really mean by all this, don't they? That we, a class of people, cannot be trusted to be around children. That we are intrinsically and inherently dangerous. Perhaps it would be best if we were all rounded up and put in a safe place-- for our own good, of course-- where we won't pose a threat to anyone.
Also, why stop at glbt people? I'm sure these god-fearing Christian legislators believe that "denying" children a Christian upbringing constitutes abuse and neglect. After all, if a child isn't Christian then their little souls are hell-bound, aren't they? What is worse than that? We're talking about suffering for eternity, right? So while they're at it they may as well restrict adoption to Christians only-- even if being a Christian is certainly *not* an immutable characteristic.
All kidding aside, I can't even explain how personal and hurtful this kind of stuff is to glbt people. I'm sure they'd be happy know that this stuff cuts us pretty deep. They are boldly attacking the stability and security of our families in the name of protecting their famlies, because attacking other people's families is what the "pro-family" movement is truly all about. It's beyond absurd.
I never use this word, but I will use it now-- this is evil.
Update: Wow. What a relief.
A bill to ban gays, bisexuals, and transgenderds from adopting, that was proposed this week by 10 far-right Republicans, is dead in the water GOP and Democratic party leaders said Saturday. GOP leaders in the House and Senate said they would not permit the measure to move through committee.That was incredibly quick.
[Ohio] House Speaker Jon A. Husted (R- Kettering) through his chief of staff blasted the proposed bill. "Most reasonable people would have a preference for being in a loving, alternative setting rather than an abusive, heterosexual setting," Scott Borgemenke told the Columbus Dispatch. "There’s a growing concern within the Republican party of continuing to introduce this divisive legislation."