An early article said the women cut off the families because they did not approve of their parenting style. LE said
they talked to some family who had met the children. I think this was done also to help identify the bodies.
Just mooing... --I do not believe their (J&S) PR that they cut off their families due to parenting style, it happened way before. These two have been together for what, 17 years? So, what did being an alternative couple look like in late 1990's Midwest America?
There are several historical artistic/gay enclave towns (going back well over 100 years) on the east coast, and in the late 80's they were still the places to "hide away" from the expectations of "normal" society... Outside of NYC.
No doubt their move to the Portland OR area (not Texas) after MN, reflected their desire to live among acceptance of their relationship, first. And adopting was secondary. I almost think their adopting children was to reinforce their alternative lifestyle. They just were able to adopt another race sooner? But no matter, because everything goes back to the original justification. -To the original wound of non-acceptance in these two women's families...
The psychiatrists can weigh in on this with much more clarity because what it means to be an alternative couple might be different for men, than women?
Knowing what I know now about Devonte's iconic photograph, I do believe these two women were out of their league on race relations in America. Did Devonte, at 12 years old have any idea what BLM was really all about? It's history of origin? From slavery, to the underground of emancipation, to the 50's civil rights, to the 70's police brutality, to now? He had no idea. This history is passed down through generations. And it is an oral history, it is about what your great, great grandfather, grandmother, grandfather, father, mother, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, experienced, etc. It's not about Cat Stevens, it's about Muddy Waters.
So I wonder while these two women were promoting themselves as rescuers of a "sad lot of unfortunates", what did Devonte think of his iconic photo and the message that went global? And why, when a figure like Ken (forget last name) of the Free Hugs project offered to connect with the no doubt impressionable, and perhaps philosophically struggling Devonte was denied access?
It's a setback for race relations, IMO. Why? Oh because the image is one of slavery complicated by a modern scenario. --Because every parent I know who has adopted children from another race, or land, cares very deeply that their child feels connected to their origins; China, Vietnam, South America, Romania, Russia, Africa. I know of no one who has adopted "crack babies, meth babies" black or white, or why they would? There is that heartwarming story of the officer in Arizona, I think, who offered and adopted a pregnant homeless, addicted woman's baby, but that is rare.
Thing is, these women had a world of opportunity to honor their adopted children's origins and history right here in America. --Like Houston TX which is practically a microcosm of everything and everyone. But no, these children were the props that served their original wound of non acceptance. And the SJW alliance served it well.
It makes me even more angry and heartbroken, and I think the people who knew them while understandably shocked need to look at the messaging, of the potential deceit that pervades society.
I'm an east coast sceptic but I know for sure BLM had cause to march in NYC, know why Charleston SC met on that bridge after that church massacre, know for sure Charlottesville had cause to stand up and resist, know for sure why Parkland went to DC. It waters down as it ripples outward with generic political phrasing though, such as the signs these children held up high. While I'll never know, I'd be curious to know what it meant to them?
