towleroad) about a high school newspaper editorial that addressed whether or not gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt. It was actually one of those pro/con editorial pages where each writer is supposed to choose an opposing view. The con writer, in this situation, chose to bolster his opposition to gay and lesbian adoption by citing Leviticus 20:13: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act: they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them." The con writer shared two additional anti-gay Leviticus passages about why gay and lesbian couples should not adopt.
Of course, the con side made a few errors. First, Wisconsin (where this editorial was written) actually allows non-Christians to adopt. Second, Wisconsin actually allows gay and lesbian individuals to adopt and -- even though it doesn't allow for second-parent adoptions -- it allows for the non-adoptive parent in a gay or lesbian relationship to file for guardianship of their child.
The biggest mistake about basing one's opposition to gay and lesbian couple adoption on the Leviticus execution instruction had to be the inability of anyone working for the school, the school paper, or the editorial writer himself to consider that there are actually kids who attend classes in that school district who actually have gay parents. Imagine reading your school paper and learning that it now only is advocating against your family but using a death-passage to support it.
At least one such child didn't have to imagine this scenario. He took the school newspaper home to his dad and step-dad, who complained to the school superintendent. The superintendent apparently agreed that there were problems with the editorial and promised to review the paper's editorial procedures. Which might mean that ultimately nothing changes, but at least he publicly admitted that there were problems with that anti-adoption editorial.
There are currently over 100,000 children currently available for adoption right now here in the United States of America. 10% of children aged 6 or older are being adopted by gay and lesbian parents and 21% of the children being adopted by gay adoptive parents alone have physical disabilities. It's great for people like the con editorial writer to talk about this being a Christian nation and to cite Dr. Paul Cameron and to talk about the wonderful Christian goal of banning adoption except unless it's by heterosexual adoptive parents. But it neglects the fact that there currently aren't enough people -- gay or het -- stepping up to meet the current adoption needs of this nation. By eliminating one prominent batch of adoptive parents -- i.e., gay men and lesbians -- he's actually making things worse for the many children in this country who currently lack any parents, much less the very specific set of parents that this con editorial writer solely endorses.