Gay Adoption – Al Knight: Anti-Homosexualist Extraordinaire

Anti-homosexualist, Al Knight–a columnist for the Denver Post who, through his seeming hundred year presence within the comfortable (read: unaccountable), clutch of print editorialists in Denver, has consistently, ad nauseam, promulgated an acerbic and singularly anal trail of words dedicated to the espousal of denying gay folk the promise of the Constitution; specifically the “Full faith and credit,” clause of Article IV, to wit: “…Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof;” and the Fourteenth Amendment, “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Knight’s latest in yesterday’s Denver Post recapitulates his peculiar paranoia with regard to the “Gay Agenda,” in the area of same-sex adoptions. He notes that, “The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in Denver, is expected to rule this spring on whether one state must honor homosexual adoptions performed in other states.”

Knight’s nutshell conclusion embraces his domino theory–“…When the victory [a possible ruling by the 10th Circuit that gay folk are, indeed, not strangers to this country’s laws: to wit, the “Full faith and credit,” clause of Article IV of the Constitution] the claim will quickly be made that the ban on gay marriage is irrational because it conflicts with laws that otherwise treat homosexual couples as the full equal of married partners.” He goes on, “…there is absolutely no good argument for letting the courts be led on a legal scavenger hunt by special interest groups intended to produce major cultural, religious and social changes without the full participation and approval of an informed public.”

Knight cites the unquestionably lofty wisdom of Oklahoma lawmakers when, in 2004, they passed a statute that provides, “…the state and its agencies and courts may not recognize an ‘adoption by more than one individual of the same sex from any other state or foreign jurisdiction.” He adds, “That [the Oklahoma law] was passed after the state’s attorney general ruled that Oklahoma had to grant a new birth certificate for the adopted child of two Washington state men. Those two men and two lesbian couples challenged the new law ans a U.S. District Court judge ruled that under the federal full faith and credit clause, the state of Oklahoma had to honor adoptions by homosexual couples granted in other states.”

Those damnable “activist” judges again. How dare they suggest, rule even, that the U. S. Constitution applies equally to all Americans, including gay folk.

As an aside, I know a little bit about Oklahoma and am perplexed by the insightful conclusion of the state’s attorney general who, in 2004, affirmed the silly notion that this is a nation of laws, not men. Quite an insidious anomaly for Oklahoma, the attorney’s general reading of the Constitution in 2004, assuredly riled a frenzy of down-home reaction, the likes of which had not been seen since the coloreds started sittin’ at the front of the bus.

Forgive me if I’m unable to see a valid conclusion arising from Knight’s premise. The supposition that the adoption of children by gay folk–couples or singly–and state-sanctioned protections (read: law) consummating that relationship between child and parent(s), will inevitably lead to a “…legal scavenger hunt by special interest groups intended to produce major cultural, religious and social changes without the full participation and approval of an informed public,” wreaks not so much of Knight’s codgerly, long-lived bias against gay folk, but, rather, speaks eloquently to the fearful spectre the hard right effuses (imbued with such haughty self-righteousness; enveloped in their adamantine shell of God, Guns and Guts–a dark and dangerous world where pluralism threatens as surely as did Rosa Parks’ determination on that bus in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955); an desperately malevolent spew from pulpits and pundits, politicians from pockets of ticky-tacky suburbs and grain-waving plains.

Anita Bryant’s message (the Florida orange juice lady of the ’70s), “Save Our Children,” provides a conclusion. While the dear lady determinably posited that gay folk were eager (the agenda), to “enlist” children in the sordid guttersnipe of homosexuality, the indubitable reality today is that gay folk are saving our children in such a way that heterosexual broken marriages (at least 50% of all American holy unions), have failed to do. Gay folk are giving–in many cases, the most unwanted–children a safe, secure, joyful place in this world where love abounds simply because these children are wanted. What desperate bugaboo engenders the perception this wanting threatens family, God, social mores? What fathom of fear suggests that giving children a loving, secure environment in which to grow and learn and love and prosper, is not worthy of legal fiat?

Al Knight’s hundreds of rants which encompass a curiously potent obsession to demonize the souls of gay folk, reflects, perhaps, not so much on the polemic of the same, as they do on his, Al Knight’s, inner demons…whatever they may be.

This entry was posted in Equal Rights, Newspapers. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Gay Adoption – Al Knight: Anti-Homosexualist Extraordinaire

  1. Stephen says:

    If Knight were to write articles about the ‘Black Agenda’ and how black men and women are getting involved with white folk for the purpose of breeding out the pure, clean whiteness of America, I think it’s doubtful he would (a) find an audience so easily or (b) be published in a daily such as the Post.

    But because we homos are the current (ever-current) boogiemen of the world, it’s okay to _suggest_ that they’re evil, or immoral, or possibly undermining society by giving blowjobs to _activist judges_ in their ‘chambers.’

    When it’s in the form of editorial, it seems you can get away with whatever crazy notions that pop into your head. I think I’ll see if I can get a job at the Post talking about dragons–specifically, how Richard Nixon was a pedophile dragon (not a metaphor) who molested young boys in China and ate the Lindbergh baby.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s