Atlanta Follows Seattle’s Lead by Installing Permanent Rainbow “Pride” Crosswalks

Add Atlanta, Georgia, to the list of cities with rainbow crosswalks celebrating LGBT pride.

After 20,000 people had signed a petition in support of making temporary rainbow crosswalks permanent, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed announced last week that the city would oblige their request.

Atlanta isn’t alone in sporting “pride”-themed crosswalks. Seattle was one of the first cities to install permanent rainbow crosswalks, which were unveiled by Mayor Ed Murray two years ago during Pride Week. It cost the city—whose politicians often complain that they don’t have enough money to provide supposedly essential services to citizens—at least $66,000 to paint the eleven crosswalks.

The crosswalks are intended to showcase the historic role played by the LGBT movement in Seattle. Murray told reporters at the time that the crosswalks show that Seattle is a “tolerant and accepting city.” This is the same “tolerant and accepting” Seattle that has banned minors and their parents from seeking biblically based therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction.

Several other cities across the country also have permanent rainbow crosswalks, and many more temporarily paint their crosswalks multicolored in support of annual Pride festivals.

Supporters say rainbow crosswalks recognize the important contributions of the LGBT community.

Critics believe the crosswalks celebrate alternative lifestyles that many taxpayers don’t support. The homosexual lifestyle has been “associated with negative physical and psychological health effects” and is “harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large,” according to social scientists.

It’s ironic that many of the strongest supporters of rainbow crosswalks oppose nativity scenes and other symbols of faith on public property because they worry government might give the impression it “endorses” those views, yet they don’t bat an eye at cities erecting rainbow crosswalks in praise of the LGBT movement and alternative sexual lifestyles.

Should cities endorse the LGBT movement by using public funds to finance rainbow crosswalks celebrating LGBT pride? Let us know in the comments below.

U.S. Senator Pressuring Court to Allow a Father to Marry Adopted Son

A Pennsylvania man has petitioned a county court to annul the adoption of his adult son so that the two can legally marry.

The man, Nino Esposito, adopted his son-turned-fiancé, Roland Bosee, Jr., three years ago, claiming that adopting the man would save money on inheritance taxes in Pennsylvania.  Esposito and Bosee were previously in a same-sex relationship and opted for adoption in lieu of marriage because marriage had not yet been redefined.   They are now interested in dissolving the adoption in favor of a marriage, but an Alleghany County Judge has ruled that there is no legal means to dissolve an adoption in Pennsylvania unless there is fraud involved.

Nino Esposito (L) and Roland Bosee Jr., (R) pictured.

Nino Esposito (L) and Roland Bosee Jr., (R) pictured.

Enter U.S. Senator Bob Casey.

In a letter written to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Senator Casey asked the Obama Administration to intervene to set forth “guidelines” on how to handle cases like these, encouraging the White House to be “creative” in devising a response that is respectful of the reality that adoption laws are passed at the sole discretion of individual states.

This is the first effort in what is expected to be many efforts to reshape adoption policy to cater to same-sex couples after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling last summer.

Some argue that this arrangement was just a workaround for tax purposes, but the case has undeniable implications for other, more conventional, familial relationships. What will be the government’s response when a biological father wants to marry his son?  Or if any adopted parent wants to marry his or her child the day they turn 18?

After all, love is love.

Changing the law to allow fathers to marry their legally-adopted sons is a troubling precedent to say the least.

The lower court’s decision has been appealed and is expected to be heard by the Pennsylvania Superior Court.