Adoption.com has some tough decisions to make. The Arizona-based online baby-selling site attempted to discriminate against California queer couple, Michael and Rich Butler (pictured with their new baby, Emily), claiming they could do so under Arizona's gay-protection free laws. A judge ruled last month, however, that if Adoption.com plans on doing business in California, they must comply with California anti-discrimination laws, which include the homos. The company apparently couldn't take the legislative heat, because they have settled the case. Under the terms of the settlement, according to San Francisco Chronicle, Adoption.com and its parent company, parentprofiles.com, must either stop working in California or stop discriminating. They cannot, however, do both:

Under the terms of a settlement announced today, ParentProfiles.com, a sister company to Adoption.com, cannot post profiles of California residents "unless the service is made equally available to all California residents qualified to adopt in California."

Speaking to the press after the ruling, Rich Butler remarked:

We think it's a great agreement for us because it really ends the discriminatory practice of Adoption.com in the state of California. We hope that they continue doing business in the state, but if they can't comply with the nondiscriminatory policy and they stop doing business in the state, it's still a victory for Californians. We're not allowing them to profit on the back of Californians.

And it doesn't seem like they'd want to, either...

• San Francisco's Department of Human Services has launched an ad campaign to recruit gay parents to adopt.

• Meanwhile, the San Francisco Chronicle have clarified their report on the aforementioned ad campaign. The newspaper originally cited Family Research Council's Paul Cameron as an "expert" on the matter. They neglected, however, to mention that he's been debunked by the American Psychological Association and hates gay people. Oops!

• On that note: the APA formed a "task force" to review research on ex-gay conversion therapy. Oh, we're sorry - "therapeutic responses". APA president Dr. Sharon Stephens Brehm bursts with joy: "I am pleased to announce the initiation of this task force. Its work will be of significant value as it will help inform all mental health practitioners about appropriate and effective therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. I look forward to the group's report." That could be good for the children.

• National Runaway Switchboard has published a new brochure for gay teens, "Being Out, Being Safe". NRS director Maureen Blaha remarks, "Research shows that LGBTQ youth are four times more likely to exhibit the symptoms of major depression than heterosexual youth -- which may lead to a runaway episode". Be sure to pack a lunch!

• "Shirley Q. Liquor" - a black face drag comedienne - did an interview with Rollingstone. Jasmyne Cannick - a black sappho-journo - wrote a rebuttal. NSFC (Not safe for children).

• In other baby-related news, here's a baby playing with a cobra! No word on whether the parents are gay.

• Pictures of celebrities smoking pot. Grownup children!!

• Plague strikes Denver zoo! Do not take your kids there. They will die. And so will you... (In fact, don't go to Colorado at all.)

• Looking for a movie about 1980s Liverpool gay teens who venture into a magical trans bar? Well, look no further: The Fruit Machine's out on DVD. Now you can go to the Denver zoo.

Dr. Paul Cameron of the "Family" Research Institute made headlines last week after he argued that gays shouldn't adopt because they die earlier than their straight counterparts. In his paper, Cameron wrote:

The life span of gays is 20-plus years shorter than the life span of heterosexuals. This shortened lifespan... has profound implications for adoption.

Cameron's press release, meanwhile, claimed to have presented these "facts" at the Eastern Psychological Association - a bit of a queer claim considering that the anti-gay wack job has been booted from all of America's major psychiatric organizations. No surprise, then, to hear that his press release was as false as his "research".

Box Turtle Bulletin points out:

He didn’t speak at the convention, and he didn’t present a report. He participated in a poster session... a chance for participants to summarize their research findings on a poster displayed in a hall or conference room. People can enter, walk around, look at all the posters — there were sixty-six of them in this eighty minute session — ask a few questions, and move on to the next poster.

Sort of like a high school science fair. Only less scientific.

Jim also points out that Cameron misrepresented himself to the EPA. The pious practitioner presented his paper as "a study on the prevalence of homosexuality", not an anti-gay rumination on life span and its impact on adoption. Here's the abstract he offered the professionals:

A far cry from his homophobic harangue. Our hypothesis: liar Cameron's pants are totally on fire. Ha ha, who's a flamer now, charlatan?

Dr. Paul Cameron's not known for his spot-on scientific research. The "Family" Research Institute wack-job famously got booted from the American Psychological Association in 1983, as well as a number of other psychological organizations - although, he claims to have resigned. No surprise, then, that Cameron's at it again, this time insisting that gay men live shorter lives than their straight counterparts.

Cameron explained at last week's Eastern Psychological Association conference that gays should not be allowed adopt, lest they leave behind little gayless orphans.

The life span of gays is 20-plus years shorter than the life span of heterosexuals. This shortened lifespan... has profound implications for adoption.

He goes on to cite gay life spans in Denmark and Norway - two countries where gays can marriage - insisting "a gay couple of 35 is, roughly speaking, as close to death as a married heterosexual couple of 55".

Cameron follows this to the no-so-logical and highly controversial conclusion that governments should bar gay adoption: "It doesn't make much sense to take vulnerable children and place them in the risky situation generated by homosexual couples".

Our counter-argument: growing up in Cameron's approved environment can only lead to more intolerance, bigotry and anti-gay psychological, spiritual and physical violence. We may not have statistics on that one, but we're betting our theories are a bit more accurate than Cameron's.

(PS: How disturbing is that picture of Cameron circa 1982, or so? He even looks like a mad "scientist".)

Gay lifespan poses adoption issues [Religion and Spirituality]

Just as Arkansas politicos squashed a gay foster parent ban, UCLA's Williams Institute and the Urban Institute have released a study on the adoption and foster rates for gay and lesbians. Apparently, 35% of lesbians between the ages of 18 and 44 have birthed a child, while 16% of gay men have adopted. Those numbers will only increased, researchers claim, as 52% of male homos and 41% of homettes claim they want guppies.

Certainly this information's interesting, but we're most intrigued by researcher Gary J Gates' comments:

Research measuring child well-being among children raised by LGB parents shows no negative consequences. In fact, studies show that these parents tend to have a higher percentage of qualities that are highly desirable.

On average, LGB adoptive parents and same-sex couples raising foster children are older and more educated than other foster parents. In addition, many LGB adoptive parents have access to more economic resources than other adoptive parents.

Someone forward this to Utah, Florida and Mississippi, all of which bar gay adoption. Also, attach a note: "It's because we're so damn fly".

Study claims a third of US lesbians have had a baby [Pink News UK]

• There's a scourge wreaking sartorial havoc on gay communities - men who refuse to age gracefully. Pretty scary, right? Don't worry, Patrick Huguenin can help. First, you have to decide where you're coming from and where you want to go. We're leaning toward a rake (pictured). Pretty sexy for a sketch, no? [Genre]

• Outrage! outraged over Ghana's anti-gay laws. They best be careful, lest they have another Nigeria controversy. [UK Gay News]

• Arkansas advanced a bill to ban gay adoptions. Fuckers. [Arkansas News]

• Mr. Show on reparative therapy. [QueerSighted]

• Where's The Simpsons Movie premiering? Springfield, of course. Which Springfield? That depends on which one's got the most Simpsons love. [Houston Chronicle]

• Lesbians love Amy Winehouse and her drunken ways. But, really, who doesn't? [AfterEllen]

• Matt Sanchez had a little chat with Michelangelo Signorile. Joe from Joe.My.God's totally got the audio. Best if taken with a grain of salt and a whole lotta disbelief. [Joe.My.God]

• Gay veteran and Don't Ask activist, Eric Alva to General Peter Pace: "Judging gay men and women in the military for factors unrelated to their fitness to serve undermines our military's effectiveness." [Pink News UK]

• HRC said something, too. [HRC]

• General Peter Pace to world: "I admit I shouldn't have said anything, but I'm still not apologizing to a bunch of immoral butt fuckers. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go fuck Ann Coulter up the ass." [HuffPo]

• Finally, a friend sent us the video for a German toilet commercial. Let's just say it makes us reconsider how, where and when we do our next line of blow. See for yourself, after the jump...

CONTINUED »

We've been watching Britain's gay adoption drama with a wary eye. As you may know, Catholic and other religious organizations opposed the government's anti-discrimination laws that would require them to allow gays to adopt. Flexing their political muscle, more than a few leaders came out against the Tony Blair-led government.

For his part, Blair suggested allowing anti-gay religious groups an exception. Gay activists and secularly-minded (and, in fact, a few religious) politicians insisted the rule would violate the law. Devout Catholic and Home Secretary John Reid broke rank when he defended the law:

If you bring in a law which says all people will be treated equally, then all people will be treated equally.

I don't believe you, in this country, have the right to overrule some of the fundamental values on which the country is based because you have a conscientious objection. That's my view.

Pretty bad ass, huh?

CONTINUED »

We think this makes a perfect counter-argument for anyone who says gay people shouldn't have and/or adopt children:

A woman mistakenly put her 1-month-old grandson through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said.

Yep, that about sums it up.

• Johnny Hazzard as the porn star-cum-singer with a new (music) video, "Deeper into You." [Gay Porn Blog]

• Whitney Houston as NewNowNext's Ultimate Diva. [NewNowNext]

• Jeanne Moos as the one of the smartest reporters in history who also compares Shiloh Jolie Pitt's cuteness with that of a baby panda. [Best Week Ever]

• UK gay couples as themselves getting full adoption rights. [The Times]

• Lane Hudson as the troublemaker who recalls what he thought nine weeks ago. [The Advocate]

• Star Jones and Al Reynolds as the illustrated versions of themselves courtesy of Pretty on the Outside. Co-starring Santa. [Pretty on The Outside]

• Porn producer Michael Lucas as himself describing himself to Hedda Lettuce as "I’m an evil Jewish mongoose high on silicone." Happy Chanukah/Hanukkah! [HX]

There are changes afoot that will allow unmarried Scottish couple to hear the pitter patter of little feet. Scotland's Parliament approved a bill that will allow unmarried couples - including those of the queer variety - to adopt children.

The law had previously allowed only one person to be a legal parent. Now guppies can have two parents!

How luxurious, right? Not according to some...

Catholic Cardinal Keith O'Brien denounced the vote, saying:

Of course it is better for a child to be in a loving home... But a loving home means a mum and dad... Basically, it is just not the natural way in which children have ever been brought up. It certainly is an immoral decision. We are descending into a spiral of immorality.

That's the first thing you learn as a child: without one mommy and one daddy, not only will children become monstrous perversions of humanity, but a huge fissure will open in the ground, releasing mythical demon spawn to wreak incomprehensible havoc across all the land. Of course, not in places where entire villages help raise a child or a man has multiple wives. They're immune. Why? Because their society hasn't been constructed around narrow-minded religious prescription, thus they're already eternally damned. Duh.

While O'Brien's Biblically-endorsed objections come as no surprise, leftist MP Roseanna Cunningham's opposition raised a few eyebrows. Known for her liberal politics, Cunningham insisted:

I may sound old-fashioned and perhaps, I am old-fashioned, but so is the majority of Scotland ...I have concerns about pushing so far ahead of public opinion. ...The one truth we know about nature is that in order to have a child you need two people of opposite sex

That's so true - in the most basic sense of the word.

Despite these (and other) arguments, 101 MPs voted to approve the bill, two voted against it and 6 abstained. Pretty good numbers for an old-fashioned country, huh?

(On another note: the pictured baby looks pretty fucking cool. He's sort of winking and pointing. Play on baby player.)

• Remember our post on WGAY-TV's disheartened former employee? Remember our tipster, Addison. Well, his full name is Addison Phillips and - surprise! - he has a blog, too. [Addison Phillips]

• If there's one thing Patrick Wilson loves, it's fucking his woman on a washing machine. And showing his butt. [!! omg blog !!]

• As South African President Thabo Mbeki prepares to sign the same-sex marriage bill, people schedule their long-awaited weddings. [SABC News]

• The kids over at Best Week Ever want you to caption a picture of Paris Hilton and Sean Preston Federline. We have a question, rather than a suggestion: how do you make a dead baby? [Best Week Ever]

• While we're on the subject of questions: Did Argentina ask the Bush twins to leave for security issues? Are we the only people who forgot the Bush twins exist? [ABC News]

• If there's one place we wouldn't want to be, it's between two lesbian mothers fighting over their four-year old daughter. Nor, it seems, would Virginia: they've just handed the case over to Vermont. And that's a fact, Jack. [365 Gay]

All right, let's get this day started right. Or is it wrong? We'll let you decide on that one, readers.

Missouri State University has settled a lawsuit with a student by the name of Emily Brooker. It seems Brooker took issue with an assigment to write letters to her lawmakers advocating gay adoption. A good Christian of the Ted Haggard variety, Brooker couldn't reconcile her academic dreams with her deep-seated belief that homos are rotten child-eating mongrels. Thus, she refused to do the assignment.

365 Gay reports:

Brooker claimed that after she refused to sign the letter because of her religious beliefs she was subjected to a two-and-a-half hour interrogation by faculty members, who allegedly asked her personally invasive questions such as, “Do you think gays and lesbians are sinners?” and “Do you think I am a sinner?”

To which Brooker replied, "You're a hell demon, may you burn for all eternity for even posing such a question!"

Okay, she didn't say that, but she did call her lawyers, who successfully argued that Brooker's first amendment rights had been violated. As a result, MSU's agreed to pay Brooker 9,000 bones and the offending profressor, Frank Kauffman has stepped down as the head of the program.

So, what was the program? Social Work. Nice, huh?

In case you're not up on Missouri law, the state lifted the gay foster parent ban back in July, citing that the law did not specifically disqualify gays from fostering/adopting, thus they had a legal right. Conservative lawmakers vowed to write a bill that will permanently prohibit the homos from adopting or fostering children. Said bill has yet to be written.

As part of the social work program, Brooker's professors urged her to sign the National Association of Social Work's code of ethics, a contract that requires workers to honor LGBT rights. The code reads:

Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability.

That sounds pretty fair to us and when we first read this story we got pretty hot under the proverbial collar. The more we think about it, however, the more we wonder if Brooker had a right to protest the assignment.

This brings us back to our follow-up on The Garden Guy, in which we asked "should religion be simply a spiritual practice, or should people attempt to extend their religious beliefs to social - and thus potentially divisive - practices?"

Should social workers - those defenders of civil society, "family values" and America's discarded children and adults - be forced to support cultures/ideals that contradict their religious practices? One reader says, "Religion should not be applied anywhere beyond the self", while another insists, "If your religious values have no social values, then they have no value". Both of which, we think, fall under the category of "notable" (obviously, because we've just noted them).

Loyal readers probably know where we stand on this issue, but why don't you guys duke it our via comments and let us know what you think...