Well, thank goodness I never blogged about this before seeing the follow-up, though it's taken me a long time to run across the follow-up.
I did, however, make a comment at Facebook to one person (and all his friends who could read the comment) and to at least one person in person (I can't remember who it was, though), about this story, taking the Gazette's report at face value. I now regret doing this and am using this post to set the record straight as far as possible.
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, of the Rutherford Institute, is a well-known Catholic and conservative writer and speaker. [Update and correction: Dr. Morse is actually with the Ruth Institute, a completely separate organization from the Rutherford Institute.] I believe she's known as "Dr. J." and will refer to her that way here.
This past October she spoke at a Catholic high school, and the local newspaper reported that she expressed support both for civil unions and for homosexual adoption.
Today, looking up the link to that story with the intention of sending it to someone on e-mail, I was arrested by seeing in the Google summary that Dr. J. had responded in comments to the story and was saying that the story was causing confusion about her views. That's for sure! I would be hoppin' mad if a newspaper had misrepresented my views in that way.
I cannot imagine where the "Kalamazoo Gazette staff" got the idea that Dr. J. supports either civil unions or homosexual adoption. In her correction to the story, she makes it amply clear that she emphatically does not support civil unions. She even says that supporting civil unions but opposing homosexual "marriage" is a dodge.
On homosexual adoption, it's possible (but this is conjecture) that she and I would differ on the individual circumstances in which, as she says, "the best parent for a particular child may be a relative who is gay." This seems highly implausible to me; in fact, I'd be inclined to say that the only situations in which a child will be best off cared for a homosexual person would be strange, desert island circumstances that are enormously unlikely to arise in real life. I think there is an enormous problem if the person in question is sexually active, and I think that homosexual activity is a legitimate complaint to bring up in challenging a custody award or arrangement. So she and I probably have some disagreement here.
However, her overall comments about homosexual adoption make it clear that she does not think such situations are the norm and that she favors discrimination against homosexuals in adoption. She is certainly not generally in favor of homosexual adoption. All of this is clean contrary to what the Gazette reported.
I hope that Dr. J. has had good success in correcting the Gazette's serious misrepresentations, and I regret my small part in passing them on to individuals.