|
Personal Health columnist Jane Brody’s Tuesday piece on gay adoption reads like a press release from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. “Gay Families Flourish as Acceptance Grows” begins: “Keith Lee Grant and Daniel Tamulonis had been partners for 15 years when Mr. Grant decided their self-focused life was too empty -- that they had much more to give. So eight years ago this interracial New York couple adopted a 2-day-old infant from Arkansas whom they named Isaac.” Brody, formerly a health reporter for the Times, writes: “Along with advances in reproductive alternatives, the gradual erosion of homophobia over the past 10 or 15 years -- a trend conspicuously on display last week in the Supreme Court's decision striking down a Texas sodomy law -- has led to a sharp rise in the last 10 or 15 years in the number of openly gay men and women who have chosen to be parents.” Brody is getting her information on well-adjusted adoptees from a no-doubt unbiased source: “The authors of ‘The Gay Baby Boom,’ Dr. Suzanne M. Johnson and Dr. Elizabeth O'Connor, psychologists and life partners who are co-parents of two girls, decided to explore how families headed by lesbians and gay men come about and how well they are faring. In 1999 and 2000 they conducted the largest national assessment of families headed by gay people who chose to participate.” Brody touts this unscientific study as proof positive that gay families are just as good -- perhaps even better -- at carrying for children than are heterosexual ones. Alas, some states are still in the dark ages, Brody notes: “In completing school and camp applications in enlightened New York, Mr. Grant and Mr. Tamulonis have found that forms no longer ask for the names of mother and father but rather parent and parent. But three states -- Florida, Mississippi and Utah -- prohibit adoptions by gays.” Brody suggests “the study with Dr. O'Connor revealed that if anything, gay parents might do better.” Having cited no opposing views, Brody concludes: “Perhaps many heterosexual couples with children and less than harmonious households could learn something.” For the rest of Jane Brody’s story on gay adoption, click here.
• Abortion | Jane Brody | Gay Issues | Health
“Many Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman.”--Reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg in her July 2 article, “White House Avoids Stands on Gay Marriage Measure.”
• Gay Rights | Marriage | Sheryl Gay Stolberg
The Times tax-hike crusade trickles down to the states, as the myth of falling tax revenues in Oregon resurfaces in John Broder’s Wednesday story on state budget woes. “As California Borrows Time, Other States Scrape Together Some Budget Solutions,” notes the state of Oregon is considering raising taxes to cover what Broder calls a “sharp drop” in revenue (though he gives no figures): “In Oregon, where revenues have dropped sharply in recent years, resulting in substantial program cuts, state officials approved a continuing budget resolution on Monday that allowed the government to operate as legislators worked on a biennial budget for 2003 through 2005. Legislators are considering a variety of options for restoring money to programs, including enacting a state sales tax for the first time.” Back on March 5, reporter Timothy Egan blamed Oregon’s budget woes on tax cuts that killed state health care and education: “Hit by a harsh recession after a series of tax-cutting measures pared the budget to the bone, Oregon, which has no statewide sales tax, now lacks enough money for health care, schools, prisons and criminal prosecution." But as Times Watch noted, there was no sharp drop in revenue in Oregon; in fact, quite the opposite occurred. The Oregon General Fund Budget grew from $5.5 billion to $11.3 billion between 1991 to 2001. In other words, the state’s budget doubled over 10 years -- it was hardly "pared to the bone.” But the Times won’t let facts interfere with its tax-hike advocacy. For the rest of John Broder’s story on state budget woes, click here.
• John Broder | Budgets | Deficits | Timothy Egan | Oregon | Tax Cuts
Did the U.S. deliberately fire a missile into an Iraqi mosque? The evidence says no, but some local Saddam Hussein-supporting fanatics say yes. So, the Times splits the difference. “Guilty or Not, U.S. Is Blamed In Mosque Blast” reads the headline to Wednesday’s front-page story on an explosion in a mosque in Falluja that killed up to nine people. Yet the underlying story, by Amy Waldman, makes it pretty clear where the weight of the evidence lies: “In truth, according to American military officials, some witnesses and neighbors, the available evidence seems to suggest that the explosion had come from within the mosque, perhaps as a result of explosives being stored -- or prepared for use -- there. But to the seething men, evidence mattered little.” Waldman’s story also notes Falluja is “a stronghold of support for Saddam Hussein” and “a center of resistance to the American-led occupation, with regular attacks on American troops and vehicles.” For the rest of Amy Waldman’s story on the mosque blast, click here.
• Gaffes | Headlines | Saddam Hussein | Iraq War | Amy Waldman E-mail TimesWatch Director, Clay Waters, with TimesWatch feedback at cwaters@mediaresearch.org |
|||||||||||||||||||||||