Nashville – Letting school officials set the first day of the school year in early-August may be costing Tennessee $189 million in consumer spending, $9.72 million in total new state tax revenue, $5.5 million in total local tax revenue, $72.92 million in new worker income and the potential to create 2,619 new jobs, according to a recent economic analysis.

“We are not asking to have scheduling control over the school year, just one day out of 180,” said Rep. Bill Dunn, Knoxville. “School officials will set all holidays, vacation days, work days, semester end dates and the last day of school.”

Lawmakers are discussing the possibility of moving the school start date, and hope during the next few months they can reach agreements with school officials.

“As lawmakers, we are entrusted with both the financial success as well as academic success of our educational system. In these difficult times, we must use current data and adequate analysis to determine if we are giving our taxpayers the best on their investment; therefore, we must carefully examine the feasibility of beginning the school year in the middle of the summer when all current analysis concludes that this is neither good for the student or taxpayer,” said Rep. John DeBerry, Memphis.

“The results of the study are very interesting, and deserve the attention of the legislature,” said House Republican Leader Jason Mumpower (Bristol). “We need to look at the top academic states in our nation and see what they are doing. We need to be creative.”

According to the research, the five states that had the highest percentage of students passing Advanced Placement tests all began school the last week in August or later. Because AP test are given the same day nationwide, it does not appear to have an affect.

“We are working with the parents involved in the Save Tennessee Summers movement,” said Rep. Bill Dunn, Knoxville. “These parents are committed to research and present us with the pros and cons of different proposals. They are truly committed to doing what is best for the majority of Tennessee families, not just their own.”

While the greatest economic impact would be felt if the school year began after Labor Day, proponents of later school start dates say a fourth Monday in August school start date would still create an economic windfall ,yet give school districts greater flexibility while allowing the school year to continue to end in May. School administrators and school board members have long contended the school start date should remain a matter of local control. The Save Tennessee Summers organization says they aren’t fighting over local control, just the scheduling of the first day of the school year – a fight in which the public appears to be strongly on their side.

A SurveyUSA poll conducted a less than a year ago showed 71 percent of Tennessee residents wanted the school year to begin the last week in August or later, with only six percent wanting a school start date earlier than August 15. Of those surveyed, three out of five wanted a uniform school-start date for public school children.

“We will be reviewing the research and data in the House Education Committee this year,” said House Education Committee Chairman Beth Harwell. “We look forward to discussing this issue in committee.”

This isn’t the first time they’ve attempted such legislation, either. Senator Stanley and Rep. John Deberry were the same people who filed a more strictly anti-gay adoption bill last year, which failed. They also had a similar bill which would prevent unmarried opposite-sex couples from adopting. It foundered as well. This new bill is a combination of both of the previous bills.

Apparently, not only do bad ideas come from the same legislators, but the same bad ideas come from the same legislators. If it doesn’t pass the first time, then try, try, again. One doesn’t have to stretch the imagination too far to observe the visceral and sensitive nature of same-sex relationships and homosexuality in general. Just what do they hope to accomplish?

They have failed to establish — at any level — whether or not such bills are even needed. Those on both sides of the issue will come down with passionate and strong opinions. Sometimes the right questions aren’t asked. Facts, however, are often left in the sidelines.

One such example of sidelining facts for the sake of opinions was seen this past week when Tara Greene, a Democrat from Sumner County, was to join a scheduled appointment with her state senator, Diane Black (R-Gallatin). She was to meet with Senator Black on Advancing Equality Day on the Hill, sponsored by the Tennessee Equality Project. The day was set aside for members of TEP and affected constituents to visit with state legislators and discuss issues important to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.

Greene was informed the night before their appointment that Senator Black had abruptly canceled the meeting. When asked, Black confirmed that she did indeed cancel the meeting which was to include discussion about Sen. Stanley’s adoption bill. In an email, Black wrote:

“This is a question of what is best for the child who is in the state’s custody and I will not be moved from my position that a child has a better chance of growing up healthy in a traditional home with a mother and a father. Those who have already had a tough break in life, like those children in state custody, should have every opportunity possible to be placed in an optimal family setting. The traditional nuclear family is still that setting.”

She said she did meet with the group briefly despite the cancellation, and that they “agreed to disagree.”

The account was told a little differently by Greene, who explained that she and her group arrived at Black’s office at the scheduled time despite Black’s cancellation, and that Black met with them for five minutes. Black allegedly insisted that they “agree to disagree” before relenting to the brief meeting.

Unfortunately, many Tennesseans (and it seems, some legislators) are unaware of not only the process that adoptive parents must go through, but they’re equally unaware of the the highly-trained professionals who work with each of our children in state’s custody to help them be placed into safe, loving homes. Equally distressing is the fact that few activists on either side even bother to talk with people who are actually in the field.

When looking for specific numbers of adoption-ready children in the state of Tennessee, it was time to go straight to the source. Calista Doll, a Communications official with the state’s Department of Children’s Services, said that as of January 1, 2009, there are currently 7,683 children in the state’s custody. “Of those,” she said, “914 are in full guardianship…[with] 330 who do not have a permanent family identified.”

When asked if those numbers are similar to a month-by-month analysis, she indicated that the numbers do fluctuate but it’s “pretty consistent.” Doll also explained that “full guardianship” means that the birth parents no longer have any legal claim to the child.

Hard fact number one: there’s already a shortage of single adults and couples who are willing to adopt children. As of January 1st, there are over three hundred children who are still waiting just to be considered by a prospective parent or parents to be adopted. Senators Black and Stanley, along with Rep. DeBerry want to actually reduce the numbers of parents who are considered to adopt children. Good luck with explaining that to the kids who are left to bouncing around group homes and foster care.

First and foremost, it’s the children that would be affected by a potential law that would prevent them from being adopted by those who are in cohabiting relationships (same- or opposite-sex). To hear it told by those who advocate for such asinine laws, one would think that children are dispensed to parents like a hamburger through a drive through window with diapers in tow. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

Hard fact number two: Tennessee already has a very restrictive adoption policy in place. To be even considered as an adoptive parent, a single adult or couple must go through an arduous and time-consuming process.

They must first complete a parent preparation class called “PATH” — Parents as Tender Healers. PATH, according to the DCS website, is a 30-hour education and self-assessment process:

“It explores communications styles. It helps families understand the feelings of grief and the loss that children can experience. It helps identify family strengths. The process also helps adults identify the child they feel that they can most successfully parent.”

Sandy Bradley, a social worker in Clarksville, explained that PATH is a one night per week class that really helps singles and couples be properly prepared to bring foster children into their homes.

Bradley said that the next step is to have a home study, which involves looking into their financial status, every room of the home, living conditions, and interviewing character witnesses and family members.

Along with the home study, a thorough background check is conducted, which was described by Doll, and confirmed by Bradley, as a “full FBI investigation.” The background check goes through credit, criminal, and past associations. In most cases, even a misdemeanor can prevent a couple or individual from fostering. A drug test is also conducted. All adults over 18 who live in the household must undergo similar background checks.

Finally, the family must have served as a foster parent for six months before adoption can be considered. “The social worker has the most weight on how a child is placed in a home,” Bradley said. She explained that each child is matched with the home that is best for that child. “There’s a local same-sex couple that has two beautiful biracial babies, and they’re thriving.”

Hard fact number three: the authors and supporters of this bill clearly believe that the state is better equipped to care for children than loving, nurturing parents who happen to be unmarried or gay.

I’ll never imagine what Senator Stanley and Rep. DeBerry hope to accomplish, especially knowing that these trained professionals do all they can to ensure that children are placed in the best homes. When asked if there was a shortage of parents to adopt, Bradley answered emphatically. “Absolutely. Especially for older children.”

Why do some members of our state’s legislature want to add to an already difficult adoption process, and keep more children in state custody? Clearly, they ignore the very clear reality that our DCS and social workers are already tasked with this thankless task, and it’s completely absurd to make it even more difficult.

State Senator Tim Barnes and District 67 Representative Joe Pitts have already confirmed that they will not support this bill. The bill, HB 0605/*SB 0078, should be completely and soundly rejected.

Discriminatory legislation should be rejected

Yesterday, Rep. John Deberry (D-Memphis) and Senator Paul Stanley (R-Memphis) filed companion bills that would prohibit “any individual who is cohabitating in a sexual relationship outside of a marriage that is valid under the constitution and laws of this state from adopting a minor.”

The companion bills are SB3910 and HB3713. It is more than a little disturbing to realize that people believe–even in today’s world– that gay and lesbian people can not be (or already are) great parents. I think it goes deeper than that. Gay and lesbian people have consistently been the great whipping boys (and girls) of conservative neocons who appeal to a deep hatred for the gay community to help boost their own popularity. Sadly, this kind of contempt goes far beyond mere religious views.

Clarksville’s own representative, Rep. Joe Pitts, stands in stark contrast to Deberry and Stanley. Pitts has sponsored or co-sponsored several bills that directly affect a real threat to our children– child sexual offenders– which I applaud. These predators should be identified, deterred, and imprisoned at all cost. These vile predators are the real threats to our children, not loving, committed gay and lesbian people who want to provide safe homes for children.

Gays and lesbians aren’t the only people affected by this proposed bill. It states:

The prohibition of this section applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.

That’s right. Unless a couple is actually married, they would be prohibited from adopting. The bill does not affect singles who adopt.

This isn’t the first time such a bill has been proposed. Three years ago, a similar bill was introduced and died in legislation. One important fact we need to remember is that every single major medical and psychological organization in the country recognizes that homosexuality is neither a disease to be cured nor a disorder to be treated. The American Psychological Association has a policy statement on gay parenting which opposes any discrimination based on sexual orientation in matters of adoption, child custody and visitation, foster care, and reproductive health services.

In an article dated Februrary 13, 2005, I wrote:

The American Psychiatric Association along with over a dozen other health and mental health organizations, has a clear understanding that homosexuality is neither a disorder to be treated nor a disease to be cured. These organizations include the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association and the National Association of Social Workers.

Another of these professional groups, the American Psychological Association, has gone on record regarding gay and lesbian parents: “Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation…” This statement and others are readily available on their website.

The reality is that our current system works. Children aren’t arbitrarily tossed into homes. In fact, judges currently have complete oversight as to who gets to adopt whom. Our judges are given the opportunity to weigh every single family situation, and they are given stacks of report from the Department of Children’s Services (DCS) on the viability of the adoptive parents’ homes.

Homes are studied and the would-be-parents are carefully screened and given psychological evaluation as to whether or not they’re fit to be parents. All of this has one thing at heart: the best interest of our children. Quite simply, a person’s sexual orientation is not a major consideration. DCS workers have far more important questions: Is the home safe? Is the couple (or individual) sound? Is there a history in their past that might jeopardize the safety of the children? And finally, what’s best for the child?

Apparently, there are those who believe that these highly qualified and skilled people should be denied the opportunity to consider thousands of committed, loving couples based solely on the nature of their relationship. It is simply not right, just, or even fair, that a vocal group of people who know little about the adoption process should think they’re better qualified to decide who gets to adopt. Their only consideration is that, as the Arkansas Supreme Court said in a ruling against a ban on gay adoption, they are biased against homosexuals.

In many cases, gay and lesbian couples are the ONLY people who’ll adopt older children, or children who have disabilities. Should these kids who’ve been rejected at every opportunity be denied their best, sometimes last, hope at finding a loving and stable home? Rep. Deberry and Senator Stanley seem to think so.

They are wrong.

My partner and I will seek to adopt in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future. The reason we haven’t already is that we both know we’re not in a financial place where we can support a family. That will change in the future.

Several friends of mine, including my own spiritual mentor, are in same-sex relationships and have either adopted successfully or are in the process of adopting. These are teachers, deputies, florists, and shop owners who all have one thing in common: they absolutely love children, and have devoted their lives to their kids. They’re great parents, and this fact is supported by the judges and DCS social workers who have closely evaluated their homes and lives.

I urge anyone to call their state representative and state senator to add their voices to those who oppose this hateful bill. It is unfair, it is discriminatory, and as I said before, it is just flat-out wrong. It has no place in our laws, nor in our great state.