How ironic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/...us/gay_traitor

Relayer wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/...us/gay_traitor

Ironic, or hypocritical?

Either way, the woman presented herself to be a parent of the child, and
now that the Fundies have had a turn on her, she all of a sudden thinks
that gays don't have the right to adopt. Following this logic all the
way through, adoption agencies would have to demand sexual histories of
all potential adopters, and I can't imagine that happening any time soon.

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Relayer wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/...us/gay_traitor

Ironic, or hypocritical?

Either way, the woman presented herself to be a parent of the child, and
now that the Fundies have had a turn on her, she all of a sudden thinks
that gays don't have the right to adopt. Following this logic all the
way through, adoption agencies would have to demand sexual histories of
all potential adopters, and I can't imagine that happening any time soon.

Talk about irony -

Did you notice the non-bio mom's attorney's name is "Bushfield"? What a
perfect name for a lesbian lawyer.

Did you notice it's okay to disclose the child's name "Gavin" in a news
report? Aren't minors normally protected from such public exposure in the
media?

Did you notice the bio-mom doesn't know whether she is gay or lesbian? I
thought men were gay and women were lesbians.

On Mar 25, 11:23�pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"John Meyer" wrote in message

. ..

Relayer wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/...us/gay_traitor

Ironic, or hypocritical?

Either way, the woman presented herself to be a parent of the child, and
now that the Fundies have had a turn on her, she all of a sudden thinks
that gays don't have the right to adopt. *Following this logic all the
way through, adoption agencies would have to demand sexual histories of
all potential adopters, and I can't imagine that happening any time soon.

Talk about irony -

Did you notice the non-bio mom's attorney's name is "Bushfield"? *What a
perfect name for a lesbian lawyer.

Did you notice it's okay to disclose the child's name "Gavin" in a news
report? *Aren't minors normally protected from such public exposure in the
media?

Did you notice the bio-mom doesn't know whether she is gay or lesbian? *I
thought men were gay and women were lesbians.

And most of all, the birth mother is citing "mothers rights"...well,
in this case, both are mothers. Both have rights. Both have the same
rights. Yet now, one "mother" is better than the other "mother". One
mother, because of mothers rights, is demanding her mothers rights
while denying another mother her mother rights. And the birth mother
acknowledges her lesbian relationship saying "it doesn't make HER a
bad mother", yet according to her the other mother is somehow bad
because she is a lesbian.

Ok, so how is NOW going to weigh in on this? I'll bet anything they
don't say a friggin word. NOT A WORD.

Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.

One other thing:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/...us/gay_traitor --- Did
you all notice this?


I'm not one to cite a grand, leftist conspiracy in the press
(conspiracies take patience and effort, something most journalists sadly
lack), but "gay_traitor"? How about "former_lesbian" or even "ex_lesbian"?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"John Meyer" wrote in message
. ..
Relayer wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/...us/gay_traitor

Ironic, or hypocritical?

Either way, the woman presented herself to be a parent of the child, and
now that the Fundies have had a turn on her, she all of a sudden thinks
that gays don't have the right to adopt. Following this logic all the
way through, adoption agencies would have to demand sexual histories of
all potential adopters, and I can't imagine that happening any time
soon.

Talk about irony -

Did you notice the non-bio mom's attorney's name is "Bushfield"? What a
perfect name for a lesbian lawyer.

Did you notice it's okay to disclose the child's name "Gavin" in a news
report? Aren't minors normally protected from such public exposure in the
media?

Did you notice the bio-mom doesn't know whether she is gay or lesbian? I
thought men were gay and women were lesbians.

Good questions.

"'There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption,' she said. 'If
Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws.'". Last I checked,
laws state what you can NOT do, not what you CAN do. Additionally, this
hypocritical woman wants a judgement to be the final arbiter in this case,
yet she rejects the validity of the judgement allowing the adoption.
Finally, she says "It's about motherly rights." according to the article. My
question: Is this about ALL motherly rights or only HER motherly rights?

On Mar 26, 1:07�pm, "Chris" wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

...







"John Meyer" wrote in message
...
Relayer wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070325/...us/gay_traitor

Ironic, or hypocritical?

Either way, the woman presented herself to be a parent of the child, and
now that the Fundies have had a turn on her, she all of a sudden thinks
that gays don't have the right to adopt. *Following this logic all the
way through, adoption agencies would have to demand sexual histories of
all potential adopters, and I can't imagine that happening any time
soon.

Talk about irony -

Did you notice the non-bio mom's attorney's name is "Bushfield"? *What a
perfect name for a lesbian lawyer.

Did you notice it's okay to disclose the child's name "Gavin" in a news
report? *Aren't minors normally protected from such public exposure in the
media?

Did you notice the bio-mom doesn't know whether she is gay or lesbian? *I
thought men were gay and women were lesbians.

Good questions.

"'There's nothing that states this is an acceptable adoption,' she said. 'If
Georgia wants to allow it, it needs to make proper laws.'". Last I checked,
laws state what you can NOT do, not what you CAN do. Additionally, this
hypocritical woman wants a judgement to be the final arbiter in this case,
yet she rejects the validity of the judgement allowing the adoption.
Finally, she says "It's about motherly rights." according to the article. My
question: Is this about ALL motherly rights or only HER motherly rights?



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That was my point Chris. It's about HER rights. This is typical mother
behavior in it's finest and most ironic.