Robbie's aforementioned post over on The Malcontent, which talks about the courage and tenacity of the head of the Empire State Pride Agenda, Alan Van Capelle, in telling Hillary Clinton to go do naughty things to herself rather than letting his organization shovel her money, has triggered a slew of excellent comments.
One of the best, however, comes from commentor WFoster:
Idle thought: Mother Theresa spoke to US politicians once about abortion, saying something like “Unwanted babies!? If you don't want them, give them to me!”
So along those lines, what about starting a little pro-life gay organization that stands outside pre-natal abattoirs and encourages those entering to stick with the pregnancy and let gay couples adopt the little unwanteds? Maybe offering to pay for the woman’s healthcare, etc.
Now that, my friends, is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. And, minus the "standing outside pre-natal abattoirs" part, a most worthwhile endeavor.
Why? Three reasons.
First off, doing so would show the universe that a) there is diversity of opinion in the gay-rights universe and b) that there are gays that don't believe abortion is an acceptable solution.
As regular readers of this blog are aware, I have come down, both humorously and not so humorously, on queers who insist on mixing abortion with gay rights. While my individual beliefs on the issue do play a big role in this condemnation, the argument is considerably strengthened by the fact that the enormous majority of Americans favor parental notifications and limits on abortion.
As long as groups like HRC and NGLTF are demanding unlimited abortion and the removal of parental notifications and calling it "gay rights", the gay community will continue to lose. These groups -- or, more specifically, the leaders and lobbyists who make up the executive boards of these groups -- are far too beholden to and dependent on abortionist money to change. However, their impact can be significantly blunted if other groups are willing to step forward and be vocal.
Second off, creating a group to promote adoption by gay couples as a means of preventing abortions would make immediately obvious the agenda of the right-wing organizations. Imagine the disaster of them having to publicly say that they would rather children be aborted than adopted by gays. At worst, they would have to drastically step up their efforts to get the kids adopted themselves -- and then we can applaud them for their following through on what they preach. Talk about heaping hot coals upon their heads. (grin)
Finally, since, as The Malcontent himself points out, gay adoption is the new obsession of the radical right. From a PR standpoint, people are primed to talk about the issue; a group that was willing to step forward, especially with a position so completely different from "gay standard", would receive an enormous amount of coverage.