Does that mean he's giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"?

Those people are brutal. I don't even want to risk stating the exact ounces or DOB on the chance that some psycho will do a nationwide search to narrow it down.  They've turn values into hatred.

And how dare these vipers intrude upon a splitting family's decision about the best way to raise their children. 

There's so much stupidity in that blog's libel that it is hard to know where to begin.  Let's see -- children who live in more expensive, spacious homes are more loved and better adjusted?  Is that what they're trying to say?

Jeebus Christmas.  Who the Frack is that blogger?

Dion ought to sue his ass -- even under the "public figure" test he has a case.

http://pediatrics.aa...

As most relevant to this subject, I guess, the report concludes:

"Children born to and raised by lesbian couples seem to develop in ways that are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual parents."

"In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual."

"More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents."

"Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage."

And let's not forget Lynne Cheney's book!

The committee said one witness testified that he warned one lawmaker, Illinois Rep. John Shimkus, a year ago that he viewed Foley as a “ticking time bomb” who had been confronted repeatedly.

The panel said it found no evidence that any current lawmakers or aides violated any rules, and recommended no sanctions.

But it said it discovered a pattern of conduct on the part of many individuals “to remain willfully ignorant of the potential consequences” of Foley’s conduct.

Speculating on the reason for their reluctance to act, the committee said:
“Some may have been concerned that raising the issue too aggressively might have risked exposing Rep. Foley’s homosexuality.... There is some evidence that political considerations played a role in decisions that were made by persons in both parties.”

The article really doesn't do it, so the full report here (long pdf):
http://www.house.gov/ethics/Page_Report.pdf

I don't think they've heard the last of it.

That means, if a staff member told a Congressmen about Foley, the lawyers have a conflict of interest between their clients. Do they help the client get his testimony on the record when it jeopardizes their other client? Who are the lawyers going to protect - Hastert, or his aide? With shared lawyers, it's unlikely that all the testimony will be complete and truthful.

Regarding the fact that Mr Dion's children are living with him and not with his wife, despite his less impressive financial circumstances:

Which parent gets the custody is a decision reached by the divorce court and the parents. So, either Mr Dion's ex-wife was considered an unfit mother, or else she didn't fight for custody and was happy enough to be shot of the children. Wonder if she pays child support.

I agree with the commenter who said that, hopefully, one day people would come out of the closet early enough so that mismatched marriages like Mr Dion's don't happen at all. But it still won't stop "straights" from getting divorced. As for the children, it's the split itself that's the hardest to take, not how the parents reshuffle post-split (ie, the kids are as likely to resent their mother's new husband as they are to resent their father's new mate).

Sometimes, I really think that the so-called "family values Christians" share but a single brain-cell and they value it so highly that they've encased it in cement, to protect it from the assault of reason...

Whether intended or not I found callous and hurtful your statement that Ms. Dion's ex-wife does not have custody "either Mr Dion's ex-wife was considered an unfit mother, or else she didn't fight for custody and was happy enough to be shot of the children." If we don't know this lady wouldn't it be better not to impugn her parenting skills or to conclude since she does not have primary physical custody (sounds to me like it's a joint custody arrangement with primary physical to dad and visitation to mom) she must either be glad to be "shot" of her kids or just be a lousy mom?  And on top of that you "wonder if she pays child support."  What's that about?  Of course she pays child support, just as the men who more often than not have more resources and better income and nicer houses than their ex-wives pay child support.  Do you disdain men who are obviously better off than their custodial ex-spouses?

You probably said this reflexively, not even thinking of its implications, because it's accepted in our society that mom should have primary custody unless there's something wrong with her or she just doesn't love her children enough.  Fathers, on the other hand, get a pass, and if they fight for custody are hailed as heroes.  The law is neutral as to the fitness of either parent based on gender.  In other words, mom is not presumed to be the better parent.  There can be any number of reasons why she does not have primary physical custody, none of them making her a bad mom.  Examples include her work schedule (does she travel, work late, have a job with crazy hours?), her other obligations (is she caring for an elderly parent, is she in school, does she have a medical condition?), and other possibilities, such as her feeling that it's better for her kids to be in a home with two adults rather than one. 

As for the split being the worst part and the rest being okay thereafter, I would say that most times the split is the start of a lot of pain and adjustment which can take years to get through, and which some people, both parents and children, never get through.  Where the split is due to infidelity or because someone's coming out of the closet the kids can feel that their needs are subsumed to their parents' wants and it can cause resentment and hurt.  Mr. Dion may have felt compelled to embrace his real self, but he probably had a suspicion that he was gay before he ever entered the marriage, while his wife was probably oblivious.  My experience is that the innocent spouse in such situations will often question himself/herself, whether or not the split was due to coming out of the closet or simply finding someone new.  In cases I've had where the leaving spouse is gay there is often a feeling on the part of the other spouse that he/she was not man/woman enough, and a rage at having been bamboozled by someone who now appears to them to have been pretending attraction and marital love.  It hurts, no question.  Few things hurt more than hearing one's spouse say "I don't love you anymore" or "I love you, but just not in that way." 

Mr. Dion is probably a nice guy.  He sounds like it from this diary, but even nice guys can do very hurtful things, and sometimes those hurtful things are done to the ones closest to them.  I won't hold it against him because it's between him and his family, but I'm not nominating him for any medals, either. 

So please, YOU shouldn't be the one apologizing Jaime.

Why not put up a legitimate picture of them, instead this juvenile effort?

So, everyone, welcome another Republican blogger posing as a "concerned Dem".

  So how about that fake photo?  What's the point?

Also, the assumption that all women are better suited to raising kids is in itself a sexist assumption.  Human beings have a great variety of characteristics and Mr. Dion may be more nurtuing and child oriented than his former wife, and there is nothing wrong with that. Or there may be things we don't know about that are none of our business.  And yes it could be her job, elderly parents she has to care for - anything.

That's what makes BVBL's post so reprehensible to start with.  None of this should be open to public debate.  Greg L. has opened innocent people - Jeff Dion's former wife and their children - to public scrutiny and that has nothing to do with a campaign.  It should be beyond the pale.

It's also true that there have been rumors for years about Davis and Devolites but I don't know what that has to do with this.  They didn't attack Dion.  And I don't know that Mike May did either.

I wouldn't assume this came from him.  Greg L, who is BVBL, has always been a meanspirited and nasty blogger.  Absent evidence to the contrary, I think he did this on his own and he's the only one who should be condemned for it.

It seemS to me that Greg was trying to imply that the ex-wife had been screwed as far as custody went, and she was "obviously" the better parent because she had a bigger house.

Just wanted to clarify that, since I've seen a few people posting elsewhere posting about what I've said. :)