Gay adoptions.

After having read and responded to the initial article over the summer on the gay adoption issue, I am once again concerned at the content of the September follow-up article. As with the first publication, the reporter fails to take any interest in seeking opposing viewpoints to his obvious support for gay adoption. He instead takes great effort to quote only those who support his position.

As the reporter seems to think, any dissent on this issue is based merely on a lack of education. Or the Bar itself has apparently not done enough to "educate its members." Then it is a children's rights issue, not a gay rights issue. Also, there are not enough people willing to adopt. The reporter even throws in a Martin Luther King, Jr., reference to anoint support of his position in the unassailable cloth of the civil rights movement. Wait, I thought this was only about the children's rights?

Regretably, this Orwellian spin machine of an article is itself a prime indication the matter is far too divisive a political issue for the Bar to take a position let alone to undertake lobbying efforts. And it is not enough merely to state that no mandatory fees will be utilized. The Bar is supposed to represent all its attorneys rather than seek to divide them along political, moral, or ethical lines.

But in an effort to downplay the divisiveness issue, the author cites a quote that "the individual lawyer was not opposed to the position but thinks it will rile up other Bar members." What exactly does this mean? Either he is saying there are no individual lawyers opposed to the Family Law Section's position supporting gay adoption, or if there are any, then it is based solely upon a fear that other lawyers may be opposed. Who then within the Bar would be riled up? In other words, there is supposedly no dissent on this issue, and if there is any dissent, then it is entirely chimerical or based on a lack of education.

Well, the undersigned dissents because a policy supporting gay adoption is wrong for many reasons. Not least of which being that the psychological well-being of children should not be sacrificed on the altar of social experimentation. With all due respect, maybe the reporter would like to quote me on that for his next article.

Mitchell A. Meyers

Raleigh N.C.

I read with disappointment that the Family Law and Public Interest Law Sections will delay their request to lobby for the overturn of the ban on gay adoption, citing possible "divisiveness"...