I must say that Utah and the Mormons are a very interesting lot. This from the Post-Gazette:
Now, that's an interesting public stance for an elected official … pretty gutsy to take on what might be perceived as a controversial step in your personal life while serving in office. According to the story, however, her colleagues aren't responding with the xtian outrage one might expect.
Interesting. Does this mean state law, which essentially forbids LGBT persons from adopting, is the “optimum” standard? I'm not sure that is the role of law — to set the bar high, especially when it denies children families that meet all the criteria for health, welfare, safety and love with the exception of marriage.
While I'm glad her colleagues across the aisle are respectful, it is actually sad that a couple who wished to provide a home for an existing child, must instead bring a new life into the world because of state adoption laws. I think Speaker Clark's sentiments might ring a little more true if “the gift of life” extended to children who are waiting to be adopted as well as the uborn fetus.
However, Representative Johnson appears to be unabashed about her belief that her gay male friends will be good parents and willing to put her own life on hold (and risk her career) to support them. That's quite laudable. Perhaps her access to the lawmaking realm with educate her colleagues and help them address the legal ban on adoptions.
For the record, second parent adoptions are legal in Pennsylvania.