What are the limits of natural human reproduction science?

Will an amendment to HB0229
prohibit abstinence education?

At a hearing later today, the State House Subcommittee on Education will consider an amendment to HB0229, otherwise known as the "Don't Say G_y" bill. The amendment would match language approved by the  Tennessee Senate last year in SB0049:

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, any instruction or materials made available or provided at or to a public elementary or middle school shall be limited exclusively to natural human reproduction science. The provisions of this subdivision shall also apply to a group or organization that provides instruction in natural human reproduction science in public elementary or middle schools.

No one is really sure what limiting instruction and materials to "natural human reproduction science" really means. Google it. You won't find an accepted definition for this phrase: only news reports on legislation. The amendment raises questions about the potential impact of the legislation on curriculum standards for grades K-8. We've attempted to answer some of them.

1. Will teachers be allowed to discuss the ethics of human cloning or assign a debate on it in a social studies or essay writing unit? May the first "test-tube baby" be discussed in a history class? Will it be permitted to assign students essays or debates on so-called artificial reproductive technology or infertility treatments? 

No. In-vitro fertilization, cloning, adoption, frozen embryos, and other non-natural reproductive methods used to create families would fall outside the scope of “natural human reproductive science.” Teachers would be forbidden from discussing these topics. Reference materials on these subjects in school libraries would have to be removed 

2. Will it be permitted to assign a science fiction book on human cloning in class or for such a book to be on the reading list for a class? 

No. At least twenty four (24) science fiction books and stories about human cloning would have to be removed from library shelves.. Students would not be allowed to give books reports on these books. 

3. Will teachers and counselors or DCS/DHS personnel be allowed to discuss and give out material on rape and sexual abuse? 

Probably not. Discussions about resources available to victims of rape, such as referrals to health facilities that offer such methods of reproduction may be off limits. 

4. May a teacher discuss adoption?

Probably not. Adoption is not natural human reproduction for adoptive parents. Adoption is a legal process pursued by adoptive parents that is sometimes facilitated by the Department of Children Services and other child welfare agencies. Fiction and non-fiction books on adoption would have to be removed from school libraries. 

5. Is it permitted for a teacher to discuss abstinence? 

Probably not. Abstinence is the opposite of “natural human reproduction.” Educational materials and programs which include abstinence as a means of avoiding pregnancy or the contraction of sexually transmitted diseases would be prohibited. 

6. May a teacher discuss the causes of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic? 

Age-appropriate discussions about HIV or sexually transmitted diseases that include mention of sexual activities that fall outside natural human reproduction science (oral or anal sex) would be prohibited. Students could be led to believe that certain sexual activities pose no risk to them. 

- Jonathan Cole

TN House District 64 candidate recruiting children in war against marriage equality

Rep. Ty Cobb's likely opponent in the House District 64 election in November is Sheila Butt. There's another Republican in the primary, but Ms. Butt has left him in the dust in fundraising, so she is all but assured to be the nominee. She may talk about jobs on the campaign trail, but I think her motivation for running is to advance doctrinaire Right wing public policy.

An email has been floating around linking to a children's book she has written, Seth & Sara Ask...Does God Love Michael's Two Daddies? I really wanted to see it for myself and fortunately a straight ally from Maury County sent me a copy. See the photo below along with some Butt campaign literature:














We could spend all day talking about the title. First, the very idea that she would publish a book asking the question whether God loves anyone should be a red flag. By starting with the question, she casts doubt in the reminder's mind. She uses the book to work toward the answer that, indeed, God loves Michael's two daddies, but that what they're doing is wrong. Never mind that they love each other and take good care of Michael. But at least they get God's love. Butt knows that if she started with the foundation that God loves everyone, she might have to concede that Michael's two daddies are responsible, loving, and healthy. And then she might have to concede that things like equality in adoption and marriage laws might be justified.

Second, I find it particularly pernicious that she puts her question in the mouths of children. The title is Seth & Sara Ask..., not Sheila Butt Asks... However, we should make no mistake that the question is hers as is the answer. She obviously feels the book is needed because children have to be taught that happy, loving families ought to be broken up:

"So that means that Michael's two daddies should not get married, doesn't it Daddy?" Sara asked. "It means they should not live together like a husband and wife."
"That is exactly what the Bible teaches," Dad said. (p. 10)

If she is elected, any legislation affecting the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community is going to evaluated through the lens of her ideas about how we need to change. She will not care that our community faces employment discrimination or that hate crimes are committed against our community. She won't care about breaking up families. The data won't matter, the stories won't matter. If you have any doubts, the campaign literature touts her membership in two intensely anti-gay organizations--American Family Association and Concerned Women for America. Definitely a campaign to watch!

-Chris Sanders

Presidential proclamation on Pride month and the remaining items on the equality checklist

President Obama has issued his proclamation of June as Pride month. After detailing the actions his administration has taken, which are far more than his predecessors though themselves fraught with compromise, he lays out remaining issues to be addressed as we move toward full equality:

"Much work remains to fulfill our Nation's promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans. That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits. We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment. I am also committed to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal."

I am glad to see repeal of DOMA, adoption rights, ENDA (vaguely) , and safe schools mentioned. These are all advances that would help Tennessee's GLBT community given the constant fight we have over adoption, the lack of employment protections, ongoing challenges with bullying, and our state constitutional amendment that enshrines marriage discrimination. I think the President's remarks also acknowledge that what the Senate Arms Services Committee and the full House have passed is not yet a real repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The President's proclamation is hopeful. The questions that remain are how hard the President is willing to work to advance these proposals and how hard the community is going to have to work to bring pressure to bear on him and the Congress to cross the finish line.

Gubernatorial candidates on the adoption issue

The Tennessee Newspaper Network, made up of the dailies serving Tennessee's four largest cities, is out with its latest segment on the positions of the candidates running for governor--social issues. Unfortunately it's not possible to link directly to the adoption question with the answers of the four remaining major candidates. You have to build it by clicking on their names and the feature adds each one.

Regardless, the answers are revealing, even when they aren't. Congressman Zach Wamp and Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey give largely similar answers. They both oppose adoption by same-sex couples. Wamp probably through oversight leaves out opposite-sex unmarried couples, but says he sees a role for singles to adopt children.

The answers of businessman Mike McWherter (the only Democrat) and Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam contain a bit more nuance. McWherter prefers married couples, but respects the status quo that in some cases allows unmarried couples to adopt. Haslam also prefers married couples, but pivots to his support of singles who provide good adoptive homes based upon people he knows at Church. He doesn't directly answer the question about unmarried couples. It's pretty clear that the adoption ban bill wouldn't be a focus of a McWherter or Haslam administration.

But would it be a focus of a Wamp or Ramsey administration? Wamp hasn't been tested on the issue, even though he has expressed hositility to homosexuality in the past. Ramsey presides over a State Senate that has not moved SB0078, although that's probably in large part because of the high fiscal note on the bill.

And that brings up the question of what role a governor really plays in an issue like adoption. The governor chooses department heads that help set a tone and the administration's lobbying posture on the issue. But governors in Tennessee typically leave these matters to the Legislature to work out. The question for equality-minded voters in Tennessee is whether we want to take that kind of chance. Quotations from the candidates are reproduced below:

Mike McWherter: “My personal preference is to see children placed in the care of loving, traditional families, but I do respect our current system that allows for judges and other authorities to make the final determination on what’s in the best interest of a child.”

Bill Haslam: “I believe that we should work to find a stable, loving home with two married parents for every child. However, I also recognize — through personal relationships with several single members of my church in Knoxville who have adopted — that there are many single, qualified individuals out there who could also provide the love and support needed to raise a child right and give that child opportunities he or she might not otherwise be afforded.”

Ron Ramsey: “I do not support allowing unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to adopt children. Adoption is not an arena political correctness should be allowed to invade. It is a very serious matter and requires the highest level of commitment. Adoption is not an abstract policy issue. It is the most critical moment in the life of a child looking for a permanent home. When married couples wish to adopt, the adoption process should include a very high degree of scrutiny to ensure a positive environment for the child’s future.”

Zach Wamp: “As a father, I believe the best environment to raise children is one in which a married mother and father cares for and raises a child, and this is true for adopted children as well. While I do recognize the efforts of single parents to adopt, I do not support allowing same-sex couples to adopt.”

What the NRCC leaves out of the adoption story

Jeff Woods at Pith notes that the Associated Press chose to ring in the new year by reminding everyone that the NRCC is trying to pin the gay adoption issue on one candidate for Congress.

Woods explains why this is problematic:

Media outlets across the state, of course, picked up the AP report just as it is. No where is there any attempt to explain that, if Tennessee bans gay adoption, untold numbers of unwanted children--including those with disabilities and health problems--will languish in state custody and foster homes for years on end.

Here's an additional problem. There was no vote on adoption issue. You can't pin it on anyone other than the Senate sponsor, former Senator Paul Stanley. Neither party moved the bill. The NRCC isn't asking why the bill didn't move. The Senate majority leader didn't seem to push for it, nor did the Senate Judiciary Committee chair. What about the Caucus chair? Nothing. The reasons probably vary from individual to individual. But I suspect the price tag of the bill has something to do with it. It carries a hefty fiscal note. So to try to pin a position on one legislator is to ignore the more important context of the issue. The NRCC's own party hasn't chosen to advance the bill.

State adoption bans are on the federal government's radar

November is National Adoption Month, and President Obama used part of his proclamation to urge equality in adoption laws so that more children can find good homes:

"America is a country rich in resources and filled with countless caring men and women who hope to adopt. These individuals come from all walks of life, united in their commitment to love a child who is in need of the protective arms of a parent. We must do more to ensure that adoption is a viable option for them. By continually opening up the doors to adoption, and supporting full equality in adoption laws for all American families, we allow more children to find the permanent homes they yearn for and deserve."

Perhaps to outsiders the language is vague. But those of us fighting adoption bans at the state level know exactly what the President is talking about. Our only questions concern what can be done and when. A partial answer comes in Congressman Pete Stark's bill to cut off funds to states and entities that discriminate in their adoption laws. The President seems to be sending a signal that he would support a bill like Stark's, but nothing is concrete at this point.

Since Tennessee has not passed discriminatory adoption legislation, despite the fact that it has been introduced many times, we have nothing to worry about. Hopefully, the federal bill will give the Tennessee General Assembly pause as it considers SB 0078 in 2010.

Federal bill seeks to ban adoption bans at the state level

Congressman Pete Stark (D-California) has introduced H.R., 3827, the Every Child Deserves a Family Act. The bill would prohibit entities that receive federal funding from denying adoptions solely based on the marital status, sexual orientation, or gender identity of the prospective adoptive parents.

According to Congressman Stark:

When considering a potential placement for a child, the only criteria should be what is in the child’s best interest and whether the prospective parents can provide a safe and nurturing home. Bigotry should play no part in this decision. That is why I am introducing the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act.” This legislation would simply prohibit any entity that receives Federal child welfare funds from denying or delaying adoption or foster care placements based solely on the prospective parent’s marital status or sexual orientation. States and child welfare agencies that fail to end discriminatory practices would face financial penalties. This is the same approach that put an end to race discrimination in adoption and foster care placements.

If passed, this bill would obviously scuttle legislation in Tennessee and other states like SB 0078. The backlash is likely to take the form of Tenth Amendment angst. But, as Congressman Stark notes, the studies indicate that children do well in a variety of family settings. And if that's the case, then we probably should consider the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, too. The bill, like other legislation affecting the GLBT community, is in for a long road to passage, but it's a good step.

Attention, Legislators: Another study says gay couples are fit parents

An East Carolina University study concludes that gay and lesbian couples are as fit to adopt children as their straight counterparts. Let's hope that it's another blow against SB 0078, the adoption ban bill still hanging on in the Legislature. Some very liberal definitions of the family have emerged in Tennessee in recent years--a man, a woman, an intern, and a camera, for example. I am hopeful that future studies can explore these variables. I find that more and more people want to know how such trendy social experiments affect one's qualifications to parent.

-Chris Sanders

Adoption ban debate on Morning Line

Family Action Council of Tennessee's David Fowler and I face off on SB 0078:

Memphis Commercial Appeal opposes Adoption Ban Bill

The Memphis Commerical Appeal has declared its opposition to the Adoption Ban Bill in the Tennessee General Assembly:

Couples who want to adopt in Tennessee are carefully screened to determine their ability to deal with a child's behavior. Their strengths are matched with the child's needs. A detailed study of their household includes medical and financial statements and references.

Whatever their motivations, politicians should not attempt to overrule the judgment of DCS professionals about who is fit to adopt and what is in the best interest of children in the care of the state.

There has never been a stampede to adopt children in Tennessee, especially minority children, children who are more than 8 years old and children with disabilities.

There are many important issues that will help determine children's future happiness, security and success. They need stable, caring, responsible parents with a good home.

Such parents can be found among married couples as well as those whose bonds are not formal but are stable and strong.

Is karma catching up with Sen. Paul Stanley?

Shelby County Senator Paul Stanley, the sponsor of the Adoption Ban Bill (SB 0078) which would prohibit any individual who is cohabitating in a sexual relationship outside of a marriage from adopting a minor, is not just the focus of child welfare and LGBT advocates.

Apparently, the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Stanley's employer, Standford Financial Group, for fraud. The SEC froze company assets to investigate international bank certificates of deposits sold by Stanford Financial Group that paid far more than typical rates of return on U.S. bank CDs. Civil charges against Stanford allege he lied about the safety of investments he sold as "certificates of deposit."

Stanley claims he is dumbfounded:

State Sen. Paul Stanley, R-Germantown, said he was amazed and dumbfounded when he got the call in Nashville from his assistant in Memphis on Tuesday morning that federal authorities had raided the Stanford Financial Group's Memphis office where he works as a wealth manager.

"It's unbelievable. I'm just dumbfounded," he told reporters in his legislative offices in Nashville. "I did not participate in any type of activity nor have any knowledge of it. If justice needs to be served, it needs to be served."

Stanley, first elected to the legislature in 2000, has worked at Stanford Financial Group for 3 1/2 years as an individual wealth management adviser and was in public finance before joining the firm.

Stanley said he has not been contacted by any investigators. "I have no knowledge of this. I don't believe any of my colleagues that were around me or that I worked with or that do what I do were involved in anything. We're wealth managers. You come in with your investments -- stocks, bonds, mutual funds -- and we help manage money for our clients."

The SEC has presented no evidence that Stanley is responsible for any of the malfeasance described in the charges.

The Liberadio Interviews from Advancing Equality Day on the Hill

Here they are. I'm blown away. First, Mary Mancini deserves a big thanks for talking to all these folks. But I'm so impressed with the personal stories of everyone who was interviewed.

Senator Paul Stanley wants to know what's going on in your bedroom

Wendi Thomas tells the story of two of my favorite people in today's Commercial Appeal: Will Batts and Curtis Petty. If their Senator has his way, Will and Curtis will lose their right to adopt children.

I spent 7 years working in child welfare in Tennessee. I've witnessed horrible cases of abuse and neglect of children. These children deserve good homes like the one Will and Curtis can provide. It's amazing to me that Paul Stanley has such contempt for my friends by sponsoring this bill again for the second year in a row.

Sen. Paul Stanley's adoption ban bill would do nothing to protect children or increase the likelihood of being placed in a loving and nurturing home. It's about pushing a narrow theological and ideological agenda on the citizens of Tennessee. Political conservatives used to believe that government has no place in the private lives of its citizens.

On Tuesday, Feb. 17, I'll be in Nashville for Advancing Equality Day on the Hill to tell Paul Stanley and other lawmakers that the Adoption Ban Bill has no place in Tennessee. Come with us or write your legislators if you oppose this bill.

Back to the Future: Rep. John DeBerry files companion adoption bill

Rep. John DeBerry (D-Memphis) has once again signed on as the House sponsor of the adoption ban bill. He filed HB 0605 today. He and Sen. Stanley were the sponsors of a virtually identical bill last year.

Naifeh Retrospective

The Tennessean's Theo Emery takes a trip through the years with former House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh. One of the early reader comments on the story is that Emery should get a spine because it's basically a p.r. piece. It never takes the haters long to emerge.

But you have to admit, Naifeh's is a great American political story. Who would have thought that a man of Lebanese descent would rise to preside over the TN House of Representatives for 18 years? He even indicates that he would be open to seeking the position again. He's not one to be counted out.

The griping about Naifeh usually centers around how he maintained power, was married to a powerful lobbyist, or that's he's partisan, or that he killed a lot of bills. Why don't people just come out and say it? You don't like him because he stood against your agenda. The other charges usually lack a lot of specificity and amount to piling on. It's either that, or you just don't like being outfoxed in your own power plays.

Well, I'll come clean. I'll always be a fan. I remember that day in 2005 when the adoption ban went down in the Children and Family Affairs Committee by a vote of 11 to 9. Speaker Naifeh went to the committee meeting, rallied the Democrats, and personally cast a vote. I am convinced that his leadership is the reason why adoption in this state is still based on what is in the best interests of the child. For that, I will always be grateful, no matter what happens with the adoption bill this session.

And I have no doubt that there are a hundred other stories like that where the Speaker helped kill a bad bill or advance good legislation. You don't read a lot of defenses of him on the blogs, but that's all right. He's always been able to manage just fine. A word of gratitude now and then doesn't hurt, though.

No clout

That's what Pete Kotz says over at the Nashville Scene about "gays" in Tennessee in his discussion of the proposed adoption ban legislation filed by Sen. Paul Stanley (R-Cordova). But before we get to that, let's give thanks.

First, I'm glad the Scene noticed the bill. I'm not surprised. They've consistently paid attention to GLBT issues. But I don't take it for granted because they don't have to cover these issues and lots of outlets won't even notice the ban until it comes time for a committee vote, if then. Second, I'm glad they're on our side. They don't pull any punches about nonsensical legislation like this. They're probably a lot more direct about these matters than even those of us at TEP are. Lobbying organizations, after all, are tempted to be too nice. So it's always a little gratifying when someone says aloud what you're thinking.

So what about this issue of gay clout in Tennessee? First, let's not lose the fact that while we're probably the most obvious group opposed to this legislation, it affects straight people too. It's about all couples cohabiting outside marriage. I don't think unmarried straight couples have much of a lobby in Tennessee, but I confess I haven't looked at every record at the Tennessee Ethics Commission. Maybe they should get one, though. Second, if this bill is defeated, child welfare clout and budget clout will come into play. Large numbers of children waiting to be adopted and the hefty fiscal note the bill carried last year should give everyone pause. Those two factors certainly were in play last year.

But let's deal with the issue of clout head on. Like just about anybody's clout, the Tennessee GLBT community's influence is regional and occasional. It's a political presence in the larger cities alongside several other interests. The results make the point. Other than the marriage amendment, no discriminatory legislation has passed the General Assembly since 2005. Lots of bills have been proposed, and you don't beat them without having a few friends. On the other hand, the influence required to pass positive state legislation is clearly lacking.

At the local level in Memphis and Nashville, it hasn't been hard finding candidates who seek and value our endorsement. In many ways, we've become just one among dozens of other interest groups that vet and support candidates. We're not king-makers, but we are a piece of the puzzle in some districts. The real test is the advancement of legislation. There are steady advances in Memphis and Nashville, but nothing concrete yet. I believe that if nondiscrimination ordinances pass in these two cities this year, you'll see a steady increase in our community's political activity around the State. Clout is something you build, but we're not starting from zero.

It's on! Adoption ban filed again.

Here's the link. Senator Stanley has filed basically the same bill he filed last year attempting to ban cohabiting couples in a relationship outside marriage as Tennessee defines it from adopting children.

The Tennessee Equality Project will vigorously oppose this bill. It is harmful to children and loving parents, and the cost will be unbearable to the state in a year in which we are facing a severe budget crisis.

NYT against Arkansas adoption ban

The New York Times editorializes against the recently passed Arkansas adoption ban:

The new law is undeniably discriminatory. Under Arkansas law, people convicted of major crimes, including contributing to the delinquency of a minor, remain eligible to adopt children or become foster parents. Single people who have no partner — or who have a large number of casual sex partners — are also eligible. Anyone who is in a committed relationship, gay or straight, but is not married is automatically barred.

The new law also interferes with the Department of Human Services’ ability to do its job of making individualized assessments of prospective parents and placing children in the homes that are best able to meet their needs. As the W.H. case suggests, an unmarried couple could be the most qualified parents. And because of the shortage of foster parents, the ban is very likely to make children wait substantially longer for a loving home.

Many of us in Tennessee will watch developments in the Arkansas case with hope that it can be overturned. We are also watching the Legislature in the coming days to see whether another adoption ban appears.

2008--A dangerous year to be G, L, B, and especially T in Tennessee

2008 will probably go down in history as one of the worst for Tennessee’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community. The attacks we faced hit the full spectrum from the criminal to the legislative to the electoral.

Criminal: The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation released their annual hate crimes report that showed a slight decline in hate crimes based on sexual bias from 2006 to 2007. What we must remember is that from 2005 to 2006 there was a three-fold increase. So it would be fair to say that the number stabilized at an alarmingly high level. Based upon a string of news reports, 2008 was nothing less than a year of hate. The police beating and subsequent murder of Duanna Johnson, the murder of Ebony Whitaker, and the shooting of Leeneshia Edwards all in Memphis painfully illustrate the dangers facing transgender persons in Tennessee. The attacks on three gay men leaving a Johnson City bar and the onslaught of vandalism endured by a Warren County man are reminders that being out is never easy in many parts of our State. The murders of two people at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist congregation in Knoxville brought home the reality that even our allies are not immune to anti-liberal and anti-gay hate.

Legislative: The second year of the 105th General Assembly of Tennessee brought renewed attacks on our community’s adoption rights as well as efforts to erase mention of our existence in our public schools. Both bills failed. But the adoption bill remained alive until the first week of May—quite late in the session. And while there was national outrage and some local outrage about the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, there was almost as much attention given to the argument that the bill’s sponsor was not treated fairly in the House K-12 subcommittee because he had asked for but initially not received a roll call vote. People who couldn't manage a word about the perniciousness of the bill didn't waste any time yelling "Not fair" about procedures.

Electoral: Facing an invigorated State Republican party, some Democrats running for legislative seats based their campaigns in part upon opposition to “gay marriage.” Particularly onerous were the radio ads run by both parties’ candidates in the 12th Senate District. Because same-sex marriage is already banned by statute and constitutional amendment in Tennessee, the message was nothing but an appeal to prejudice. It largely turned out to be a losing strategy for Democrats. Conservative Republicans won control of the State House and Senate for the first time since Reconstruction setting up 2009 to be another rough year for the State’s community.

DCS making progress--Let's not slow them down with foster care and adoption bans

Gail Kerr devotes today's column to the progress that the Tennessee Department of Children's Services. She summarizes the findings of a recent report:

Among the things Tennesseans should be most proud of:

• Kids are no longer shuffled between dozens of foster families.

• The caseload of social workers has gone from 40 kids on average to 20. When the mess started in the late 1990s, caseworkers sometimes had 60 kids under their care.

• There are now 7,500 kids in state custody, from a high of 11,000 in 2004.

• The state has placed 90 percent of children in foster care with families instead of group homes or institutions. It's kept 85 percent of siblings together.

We're already hearing rumblings, though nothing definite, of renewed legislative efforts to prevent gays and lesbians or unmarried couples from becoming foster and adoptive parents. Obviously, we would oppose those efforts regardless of whether the Department were making progress. But at a time when the Department is doing such a good job and when the State budget can't bear added expense, I think a good neutral argument can made for scuttling restrictive legislation. Let's continue to focus on getting more children into loving homes.