Not according to the article. You should read it.
There is only one person to blame for this, Mommy just valued heroin more than she did her children. So, Mommy is an unfit mother - she can’t dump them on her parents because of health issues.
Baloney! A multitude of other people share the blame for this atrocity. The social workers, judges, legislators, and voters of that putrid society all share the blame for forcing this child to be adopted against his family's wishes by a couple of overt sexual deviants.
So, do they go to an orphanage, or do they go where they are wanted, will be provided for, will be parents involved - or do we make them wards of the state?
That is some embarrassingly fallacious reasoning you used there. Your false choice of the boy becoming a ward of the state is a simplistic strawman argument. There are a variety of other options available, first and foremost keeping the child with the family he loves and that loves him.
I don’t see where the judge had a whole lot of choice in this matter - and I think the article is missing some KEY factors ....
This is a silly thing to say for someone who clearly didn't read the article.
but hey, what do facts matter when they can leave out some key factors and get some emotions fired up?
What "other factors" could be more important than the fact the child wants to stay with his family and that they want him to stay with them. Any society that would force a child to be given over to perverts like these deserves to fail.
You seem pretty willing to ignore the situtaion that the mother brought upon her children. She, and she alone is responsible for what happens to her children. This is why it's called 'Parenting'.
Were the social workers, judges, legislators all supposed to tie mommy up, and imprison her night and day so she wouldn't take drugs? Why is law enforcement suddenly responsible for decisions an individual makes? Do you want law enforment taking over your life - just to 'make sure' you don't make any 'bad decisions' too?
Actions have consequences. The law is not concernced about 'feelings'; they are concerned about the application of 'law'. Being a gay couple (and we will both agree that these are NOT ideal parents), does not preclude them from adoption. This 'couple' wants the children, and is willing to adopt, raise and pay for them. Given the choices available, this was the best that the judge (who knows ALL the factors that this pathetic journalist managed to miss) had to work with.
You weren't there, neither was I. This article is woefully inept; is this gay couple just a random group from off the street? Are there no waiting lists for a man and wife who want to adopt? Are there mental, or physical imparements that the children bring with them? Is there a history of mental abuse in the house? Simply stated - we don't know; but the judge does.