<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DOJ Statement on Gay Parenting: An Impact on Florida Adoption Case?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/</link>
	<description>Same dork, new year!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:04:59 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jane and Jane Magazine, Celebrating Lesbian Living</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/#comment-2163</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane and Jane Magazine, Celebrating Lesbian Living</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3200#comment-2163</guid>
		<description>[...] at Law Dork, Chris Geidner opines that the DOJ filing could even have an impact on of In re: Gill, the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] at Law Dork, Chris Geidner opines that the DOJ filing could even have an impact on of In re: Gill, the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Media and National Orgs React to New DOJ Brief Defending DOMA : glaadBLOG.org</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/#comment-1984</link>
		<dc:creator>Media and National Orgs React to New DOJ Brief Defending DOMA : glaadBLOG.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:49:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3200#comment-1984</guid>
		<description>[...] Geidner reflected on the significance of the DOJ briefing in regards to LGBT parenting on his blog LawDork.net: The U.S. Department of Justice took a strong stand today for LGBT equality in at least one portion [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Geidner reflected on the significance of the DOJ briefing in regards to LGBT parenting on his blog LawDork.net: The U.S. Department of Justice took a strong stand today for LGBT equality in at least one portion [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gay Couples Law Blog</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/#comment-1982</link>
		<dc:creator>Gay Couples Law Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:13:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3200#comment-1982</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Impact of DOJ Gay Parenting Statement on Florida Adoption Case Likely Small...&lt;/strong&gt;

Several news outlets reported yesterday about a brief filed the Department of Justice that defended the Defense of Marriage Act while at the same time called for its repeal. Part of the brief pointed out that the government was not......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Impact of DOJ Gay Parenting Statement on Florida Adoption Case Likely Small&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Several news outlets reported yesterday about a brief filed the Department of Justice that defended the Defense of Marriage Act while at the same time called for its repeal. Part of the brief pointed out that the government was not&#8230;&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Twitted by sallywits</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/#comment-1958</link>
		<dc:creator>Twitted by sallywits</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3200#comment-1958</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was Twitted by sallywits [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was Twitted by sallywits [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DOJ Statement on Gay Parenting: An Impact on Florida Adoption? : Gay News from Gay Agenda &#8211; GayAgenda.com</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/#comment-1955</link>
		<dc:creator>DOJ Statement on Gay Parenting: An Impact on Florida Adoption? : Gay News from Gay Agenda &#8211; GayAgenda.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3200#comment-1955</guid>
		<description>[...] Read more at: Law Dork! [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Read more at: Law Dork! [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/#comment-1905</link>
		<dc:creator>Prup (aka Jim Benton)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3200#comment-1905</guid>
		<description>Now let me get this righrt.  Afaik, &lt;b&gt;no&lt;/b&gt; politician that I can recall, however strong they have been for gay rights, has specifically argued in favor of gay adoption.  The demonstrations that gay parents are as suitable as striaght parents have been made in journal articles, in law suits, by activists, and even on television, but I would appreciate if anyone can point to a politician having made these arguments (instead of treating the topic as too much of a hot button topic -- given the paranoia about &#039;gays and children&#039; -- to go near, as assuming it will only lose them votes, not gain them).

And yet, here is that homophobic DOJ -- ordered by the &#039;backstabber&#039; Obama -- stating as both fact and governmnt policy the position Chris quotes above.

More importantly, he made this statement when, had he remained silent, had he merely refused to address the intervenor&#039;s brief, or had he merely stated that &#039;we do not support the argumentregardng biological parenting  in their brief&#039; no one would have been offended.  He didn&#039;t have to take this position, he didn&#039;t have to state it this strongly.

And yet he did.  And, may I remind you, at a time when his signature issue -- health reform -- is embattled, his voluntary end-of-life counseling is being portrayed as &#039;mandatory panels that want to kill Grandma&#039; and, as Steve Benen reports today, pre-natal home nursing visits (included at the bill at the behest of spcial conservatives)  are being portrayed by the same social conservatives as &quot;We are setting up a situation where Obama will be invading parent&#039;s [sic] homes and taking away their children.&quot;

If ever there were a time when he could be excused for not taking on a proposition that would be controversial without givinbg the Republicans a need to lie about it, it was now.  And yet we have the strongest position on this topic possible.

And still there are those who condemn him.

*sigh*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now let me get this righrt.  Afaik, <b>no</b> politician that I can recall, however strong they have been for gay rights, has specifically argued in favor of gay adoption.  The demonstrations that gay parents are as suitable as striaght parents have been made in journal articles, in law suits, by activists, and even on television, but I would appreciate if anyone can point to a politician having made these arguments (instead of treating the topic as too much of a hot button topic &#8212; given the paranoia about &#8216;gays and children&#8217; &#8212; to go near, as assuming it will only lose them votes, not gain them).</p>
<p>And yet, here is that homophobic DOJ &#8212; ordered by the &#8216;backstabber&#8217; Obama &#8212; stating as both fact and governmnt policy the position Chris quotes above.</p>
<p>More importantly, he made this statement when, had he remained silent, had he merely refused to address the intervenor&#8217;s brief, or had he merely stated that &#8216;we do not support the argumentregardng biological parenting  in their brief&#8217; no one would have been offended.  He didn&#8217;t have to take this position, he didn&#8217;t have to state it this strongly.</p>
<p>And yet he did.  And, may I remind you, at a time when his signature issue &#8212; health reform &#8212; is embattled, his voluntary end-of-life counseling is being portrayed as &#8216;mandatory panels that want to kill Grandma&#8217; and, as Steve Benen reports today, pre-natal home nursing visits (included at the bill at the behest of spcial conservatives)  are being portrayed by the same social conservatives as &#8220;We are setting up a situation where Obama will be invading parent&#8217;s [sic] homes and taking away their children.&#8221;</p>
<p>If ever there were a time when he could be excused for not taking on a proposition that would be controversial without givinbg the Republicans a need to lie about it, it was now.  And yet we have the strongest position on this topic possible.</p>
<p>And still there are those who condemn him.</p>
<p>*sigh*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mombian &#187; Blog Archive &#187; DOJ DOMA Case Filing Says Government Doesn&#8217;t Care If Parents Are Biological</title>
		<link>http://lawdork.net/2009/08/17/doj-statement-on-gay-parenting-an-impact-on-florida-adoption-case/#comment-1892</link>
		<dc:creator>Mombian &#187; Blog Archive &#187; DOJ DOMA Case Filing Says Government Doesn&#8217;t Care If Parents Are Biological</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:25:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawdork.net/?p=3200#comment-1892</guid>
		<description>[...] at Law Dork, Chris Geidner opines that the DOJ filing could even have an impact on of In re: Gill, the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] at Law Dork, Chris Geidner opines that the DOJ filing could even have an impact on of In re: Gill, the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
