-----Original Message-----
From: Gww1210@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:22:28 -0400
Subject: Redux on CS/HB 7013: Adoption and Foster Care
To: Rick.Scott@eog.MyFlorida.com, Rick.Scott@MyFlorida.com, Gww1210@aol.com
CC: Stargel.Kelli.web@flsenate.gov, Colleen.Burton@myfloridahouse.gov,
    Gardiner.Andy.web@flsenate.gov, OfficeOfTheSenatePresident@flsenate.gov,
    Steve.Crisafulli@myfloridahouse.gov, speaker@myfloridahouse.gov,
    Gaetz.Don.Web@flsenate.gov, barnes.rachel@flsenate.gov,
    martin.katie@flsenate.gov, dowdy.chris@flsenate.gov,
    davis.chad@flsenate.gov, dowd.cory@flsenate.gov,
    bill.rufty@theledger.com, Bill.Thompson@theledger.com,
    John.Chambliss@theledger.com, rick.rousos@theledger.com,
    kevin.drake@ledgermediagroup.com, lynne.maddox@theledger.com,
    DJoyce@tampatrib.com, jjguidry@tampatrib.com, JRosica@tampatrib.com,
    SOtts@tampabay.com, TNickens@tampabay.com, Nickens@tampabay.com,
    Local@tampabay.com, tampanews@tampabay.com, tbteditors@tampabay.com,
    JGeurts@tampabay.com, EZazycki@tampabay.com,
    Sobel.Eleanor.web@flsenate.gov, Clemens.Jeff.web@flsenate.gov,
    David.Richardson@myfloridahouse.gov, frontdesk@flfamily.org,
    info@FLfamily.org, stemberger@orlandolawyer.tv, jtstemberger@juno.com,
    gww1210@gmail.com, David.Lancz@myfloridahouse.gov,

Office of Governor Rick Scott
State of Florida, The Capitol
400 S. Monroe St. ; Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001

Rick.Scott@eog.MyFlorida.com ; Rick.Scott@MyFlorida.com
(850) 717-9337 ; (850) 488-7146 ; (850) 488-4441
Subject: Redux  on CS/HB 7013: Adoption and Foster Care, a good bill; please sign it.
Dear Gov. Scott:
It has come to my attention that the Florida Family Policy Council (FFPC), and Florida Family Action (FFA) (which is its Lobbying and Legislative arm) has recently lobbied you to veto CS/HB 7013, Adoption and Foster Care, which passed both House & Senate (and which has my support as well) and is now headed to you to sign, ignore, or veto:
Here https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=YzPiJaILtMA they posted a video where their coalition of Christian leaders, parents, & adoption advocates from across Florida gathered in Tallahassee Monday, May 11, 2015, to urge you to veto CS/HB 7013. They sincerely (but incorrectly) claim that, if signed into law, the legislation would threaten the continued operation of various faith-based agencies that adopt out, due to increased litigation & legal fees from groups or individuals targeting them for observing their sincerely held religious beliefs.
The FFPC and FFA are right on "most" things, but not on this matter -- and, even tho they be rich and well-endowed financially (and, thereby able to grab the attention of the mainstream media with press conferences) they, nonetheless, do NOT speak for all conservative, Christians, or -- perhaps -- even a majority of Floridians in general (including me, a very Conservative Christian -and Republican). You are the governor of ALL the people -- not just a few rich vocal interest groups. :) As this has become a nasty and divisive fight, I think that it may be instructive to cc you my response to them on their social media. (They have been mature enough to not delete my posts, and for that, I commend them. But they still miss a few points.)
As my reply to them also addresses the tricky "conscience clause" issue, this is de facto required reading for all interested parties. (Also, keeping in mind that I'm the guy who almost won in court on behalf of Terri Schiavo -- all by myself -- perhaps I'm "smarter than a 5th grader" on legal matter -- such as this.)
Below is my response to their video, "FFA Press Conference: Christian Leaders Address Adoption Reform Bill," Published on May 14, 2015 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzPiJaILtMA -- You (or the FFPC / FFA -- or even the lame/lazy news media, if they so chose) cite me as a source and quote me with regard to my constituent feedback. (In fact that would be good - to get an "alternative" conservative viewpoint here, or, in this case, the "main" one: The FFA's view is the alternative, not the main - which had the support or most conservatives in House and Senate - and elsewhere).
OK, you raise a good point: A Catholic adoption agency allegedly closed due to laws which removed any ban on homosexuals adopting. But, the question in my mind is this: Did they close because they had to or merely because they wanted to? To answer this, we must ask: Did they refuse to place children in single-family homes? If the answer is yes, then, at least they weren't hypocrites (indeed: both singles and gays are less fit parents), but still: refusing to place kids in a single-parent home is questionable, and outright bad if that's the only home available: they would be inconsistent with known science and experience: Single-parents sometimes are qualified to adopt!
If, on the other hand, the adoption agency placed children with singles, but not with gays, then this is showing favortism and bias: a clear violation of James chapter 2 of the Holy Bible -- as well as the legal counterpart: An Equal Protection violation. Since both singles and gays are less fit to adopt, but still sometimes the most qualified home (if, for example, the only married couples available are bad for unrelated reasons: alcoholism, child abuse, adultery, etc.), then an adoption agency which refused to place children in homes with gay parents would be wrong for this reason: they would be double-standard hypocrites and inconsistent with themselves.
Either way, they would be wrong - inconsistent with with themselves or with known truth.
PS: I do, however, support the 'conscience clause' that might give adoption agencies some leeway to adopt -- however, if it gives as much power as would be needed for, say, a University to kick out students for Interracial Dating (like Bob Jones University tried doing recently), then this would violate civil rights; On the other hand, if it was like a conscience clause that allowed places to not be forced to do abortions, I would be OK with it. For adoptions, how would this work? Well, "singles" might be given "less" preference than married couples (hey, they already are! And it's not discrimination, but merely "state's interests"), so, if singles can be given "less" preference, then so can "Same Sex" couples -- but to outright ban gays would be like outright banning singles from adopting -- either extreme is bad. So, private agencies might be given a "little" more leeway, but, in the end, the law is the law.
BUT: on to the main subject! ** You all know, by now, that I am a big supporter of almost all y'all do -- be it defending the unborn life (PRO-LIFE - like me!), or opposing Same Sex 'Marriage' (and I put that in quotes, as it's not REALLY marriage) -- moreover, Same Sex couples are even worse parents than singles -- as Dr. Marks' research shows (see link below).
See -also - for example, the “DECLARATION OF LOREN MARKS, PH.D.,” page 20, in Searcy, et al. v. Strange, No. 11:14-cv-208-CGM (S.D.,Ala. 2015), where a small, but statistically significant, group of children were compared, and all things being equal, married couples had the best development from objective teacher reports (and not biased parental reporting), and next, singles, and lastly, homosexual rearing. In other words, “on average” gays did worse even than singles or marrieds, but, in some cases, they were the 'best' option for a child that would otherwise wind up in foster care, a ward of the state, or – worse yet – live on the streets.
However, I respectfully dissent on the fullness of your message here -- as I even told Governor Rick Scott recently: http://gordonwatts.com/email-to-the-governor-about-adoption-bill.html
This is a bitter pill for you to swallow, but you all are mature enough to accept respectful dissent, and for that, I commend the Florida Family Action and the Florida Family Policy Council.
For my part, I aspire to be diplomatic and respectful to all of you -- fellow-Conservatives and fellow-Christians.// :) <3
PS - ADDENDUM: Oh one more thing: The 'adoption' issue is NOT the most important thing (as you claim in your opening statement) -- the definition of marriage (the core and fundamental issue), related to BUT DISTINCT FROM the adoption issue - is, in fact, the most important issue on this type (or of almost any type).  
Gordon Wayne Watts
Gordon Wayne Watts, editor-in-chief, The Register
www.GordonWayneWatts.com / www.GordonWatts.com
BS, The Florida State University, Biological & Chemical Sciences;
Class of 2000, double major with honours
AS, United Electronics Institute, Class of 1988, Valedictorian

821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL 33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411 Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141 Cell:(863)XXX-YYYY Redacted!!
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com

Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe

Truth doesn't change because you disbelieve it

TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrants
http://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get Truth

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying: "Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists, Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, &other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get "practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "
Speak up now or forever hold your peace!"-GWW