One of the strangest commentaries in the renewed debate over Florida's gay adoption ban comes in the form of an editorial from the Palm Beach Post.
It starts off strongly, calling the ban "cruel" and "cowardly," saying it arose from a "nasty" anti-gay rights campaign, and noting that even the judge who wrote the 6–6 court decision in 2004 upholding the ban said he thought it should be overturned legislatively.
And then, in the last paragraph, it's like the Rev. Dobson's astral projection starts fighting with the writer for control, and suddenly things take a bizarre turn: "Ideally, adoptive children would go to two loving,
heterosexual parents. But the children whom homosexuals have tried to
adopt are the hardest to place."
So, if I follow this reasoning, the ban is only a problem because there aren't enough loving straight couples around willing to adopt kids who aren't non-disabled white infants.
Does that mean the ban is "cruel" because it makes the other straight adoptive couples feel guilty and "cowardly" because it won't just up and admit that it's handy to let the noble savages gays to do the hard work? Somehow want to help the Palm Beach Post dig themselves out of this one?
