Writing for his blog “The Skepticians,” (which may soon be added to the utterly disgusting number of blogs in my reader), James Richardson, the Republican National Committee Online Communication Manager for the 2008 election, discusses a recent Florida ruling in which the judge ruled against a ban on gay adoption, noting that it was hypocritical to ban adoption but at the same time allow foster parenting.

Richardson, a supporter of gay adoption, argues that the GOP needs to change its attitude toward this issue or risk being marginalized.

He attempts to make a defense from the inevitable demonization coming from certain corners of the party:

My support for gay adoption will surely be met with hostility and, no doubt, charges of RINO’ism by many of my colleagues, but the Grand Old Party is at a crossroads and now is not the time for an echo chamber. Homosexual demagoguery is not the answer to the Party’s woes, particularly when gay men and women represent the only demographic in which John McCain bested President Bush (27% to 19% based on exit polling). And as Daniel Blatt notes, gay-hostile rhetoric no longer resonates in suburban areas with soccer moms, many of whom have gay friends or family members, and plays even worse with young voters, 61% of which voted against stripping gay couples of the right to marry.

I think he makes a good argument.  The world is changing, and while I know that it is a core principle of conservatism to stop radical change, gay rights are hardly anything new.  As Richardson points out, the younger generation is becoming more accepting (or at least more tolerant) across the board, even among evangelicals.  As the younger generation gradually becomes the dominant generation in the GOP, they seem to have two choices: become more tolerant or indeed risk increased marginalization, at least until that younger generation takes the helm of the party.  It’s already being seen; this election was one of the worst yet for the GOP when you look at younger voters.  They would do well to not continue that trend.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey argues that Richardson is being far too harsh on the matter:

Also, James is a nice guy — we’ve met a couple of times — but he takes the wrong tone in this challenge.  Public adoption is a difficult responsibility, and the opponents of gay adoption are concerned about the welfare of children placed in homes.  For some reason, James seems unwilling to credit them with any good motives at all.  If he doesn’t want hostility as a response, he might be advised not to offer it as an argument in the first place.

Richardson offers a concession on his tone, but isn’t giving up his main argument:

Perhaps the tone I adopted towards the opposition was too harsh, though I don’t dispute that proponents of traditional adoption have some good motives – the best interest of children – but, sadly, America doesn’t have a surfeit of willing families to adopt children. Scratch that, willing heterosexual couples willing to adopt children.

Times are changing, and if the GOP isn’t willing to change with them, they can at least have a discussion on the matter. Silence is not golden.

I think both Morrissey and Richardson have points here.  I don’t doubt that some opponents of gay adoption have the best interests of the children at heart.  These people need to be part of the debate as well, and the GOP can’t afford to alienate them, either.  The problem is as Richardson puts it; that there simply are not enough heterosexual couples (or singles) to adopt children, or enough who want to do so.  Surely in this case people who are willing to provide a loving home is better than none at all?  Morrissey agrees with that last sentence.  But there are some who would argue that a gay couple (or single) could never provide such care, which I think is misguided.  It’s their perogative to believe that, of course, but don’t expect me to agree with it.

I think one of the tasks for the GOP over the next several years is finding out where they stand on gay issues, including adoption.  They can either keep with the (largely religion-influenced) status quo or accept that there are people who may not fit the traditional defintion of marriage, who may perhaps be fiscally conservative, but may like to raise children nonetheless.

It’s all up to them.