I hope they bury me in my jeans.

Your parents chose this for you long before you were old enough to do this yourself, but that's not a bad thing-- it's like choosing your name, or choosing not to change the name given to you by your birth family. They decided how you should be identified to the world, and you internalized it over time. When people refer to my biological children as my "own" as a way of distinguishing them from the children who joined our family through adoption, I always say, "They're ALL my own." I choose to do this so that others recognize that their language socially undermines adoptive parent/child relationships, and so that my children will never question their status in our family. My children hear this and internalize it and know that bio or adopted, they all are equal. The same can be said for using the past tense vs. the present tense when referring to a person who was adopted. Adopted children should NOT grow up thinking that they have a label or status that sets them apart from children who join a family through birth. Extensive research has been done on this, and concludes that forcing such a status onto a child is detrimental to that child's sense of self and long-term attachment within the adoptive family.

The thing is, marriage IS a status. What is your marital status? That's a common question. The status of one's marriage is pertinent in a variety of legal and social situations, and, in this day and age, can change fairly easily. Adoption is NOT a status. It is an event. It happens once and is over, just like a birth. Again, we don't say that a child IS a vaginal birth. We don't say those twins ARE a c-section. It happened and is over with. It may come up every so often when filling out some medical background information, but that's it. No offense taken nor snarkiness read, and I meant none either. I think it's a fair question, and I believe I gave a fair answer.

This post has me genuinely confused. To say that two of my children "are" adopted is grammatically incorrect. If a child of mine demonstrates ignorance with regard to a rule of grammar, then I need to educate her so that she will not make the same mistake in the future. She may choose to violate it again, but she may not choose that the rule should not exist at all. To say that my sister "is" adopted is factually incorrect. Factual errors can and should be corrected. If someone says that I live at 201 North Main, when I actually live at 210 North Main, I can and should let that person know that they made an error, shouldn't I? But that person doesn't have the "right" to decide that I live at 201 North Main. I have a daughter who is Asian. Is it the right of each individual to decide whether to refer to her by a racial slur? What about my five black brothers and sisters? My Indian brother? Can people choose to say those derogatory things because it is the "right" or each individual to decide whether or not racial slurs are socially acceptable? If you were saying something derogatory about an entire class of people, wouldn't you want to know so that you could avoid saying it again? Or would you rather that the people you offended remain silent because it is your "right" to continue to inadvertently make the offensive remark?

Actually, referring to a child's adoption in the present tense IS offensive. It is a remnant of language from a past where adoptive relationships were seen as less valid than biological relationships. I understand that no offense was intended. That's why I cringed and posted a gentle reminder instead of being ticked off.

The practice of referring to the adoption of a person in the present tense, rather than the past tense, when that adoption in fact occurred in the past, undermines the relationship of the adoptive family, is insulting to adopted persons, and is not an accurate representation of adoption overall. I am not telling others how they must view adoption-- I am joining with other adoption professionals and adoptive families in fighting a cultural language barrier that is detrimental to us and our children.

Are they going to do a study of ALL Illinois children in private school? I doubt it. There is no way in you-know-what that I would voluntarily submit to such a study, and, as a member of the board of the Illinois Homeschool PAC, I would vigorously fight against such a study.

I would like to just put out a gentile reminder, as an adoptive parent, an adoption attorney, with siblings and nephews who were adopted, that: Adoption is an event, not a status. All these "are adopted" and "is adopted" mentions are making me cringe on behalf of adoptive families everywhere. If you would not refer to your children in this way: "My daughter is a vaginal birth" or "My son is a c-section," then please don't say that a child "is" adopted or that you know people who "are" adopted. Thanks.

YES we WERE! LOLOL!!! Every morning we do a Saint of the Day and the devotional book (which includes one of the daily Mass readings) from Liturgy Training Publications. (Our Liturgical Calendar is in one of the pictures, too.) :)

Glad I wasn't the only one alarmed by that! He is there to enforce the law-- yet he doesn't know what the law is?!?!?!?

THANKS everyone!!

I called the news desk of our local paper last week hoping they'd run a political story in relation to the proposed HS regulation in IL. Later that afternoon, the legislation was tabled-- so they asked if I would let them do a "general interest" homeschooling story instead. I took a deep breath <in--out> and agreed. With all that has been going on in IL about regulating homeschoolers, many of us are deciding to "go public" <deep breath> about what we do all day. They're scared we aren't educating our kids. I was scared of showing them my basement. :D Here's the story. I knew they had a video camera when they came-- but when they asked me what our typical day was like, I had NO IDEA they were filming me. I don't like the camera angle at all-- but the later footage shows me doing FLL with my two older girls!!

I'm on the advisory board. Senator Maloney has publicly stated several times that he intends to pursue truancy legislation that will affect homeschoolers. We intend to maintain pressure to ensure that never happens. We aren't just here for the current crisis, however. The Illinois Homeschool PAC will also help keep political pressure on ALL elected officials to protect our homeschooling freedoms. If you have any questions for me-- ask away!!

Bumping-- posted this last night before bed . . .

In light of recent events here in Illinois, a new PAC has been formed for homeschoolers. Here's the FB page: http://www.facebook.com/IllinoisHomeschoolPAC and here's a story quoting the founder of the PAC. Make sure you "like" the FB page to keep up with any potential new legislation!!

It is Christian, but it's not the same as the "Christians" you'd find at HSLDA. I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and I am an affiliate of HLA. If you live in Southern Illinois, and need legal assistance pertaining to homeschooling, I am the person who would represent you through HLA. Long ago, when we first started homeschooling, I volunteered free legal help to HSLDA. They turned me down flat. They didn't even know I was Catholic-- I was told later it was probably because I am female.

Homeschool Legal Advantage http://www.homeschoollegaladvantage.com

That was the Committee Chair. She said that in her opening remarks. She meant it as a complement (you guys must be SAINTS to be at home with your kids all day!) but it felt backhanded to me. Her remarks throughout the hearing definitely made me worry that, if she had her way, we'd all have to have education degrees, register, and test every year.

That officer was a nice old man who was truly misguided. His testimony made my hair stand on end!!

THAT's who she was. I remembered Dorothy, but couldn't remember her last name. She was AWESOME.

That ticked me off. I went there prepared to speak. I was in the room, fifth row back. After signing up to be a witness ANYWAY, I asked other moms in the room what they thought about that. A lobbyist (Pastor Bob) said that it was important that we not start fighting among ourselves (a good point) and I decided to stop riling the crowd ;). They did end up adding another witness, a woman named Dorothy (I didn't catch her last name) who advocates on behalf of five homeschooling groups, both religious and secular. I was really glad she spoke because I truly felt that she was representing ME. I also appreciated the testimony of Jefferey Lewis (a homeschooing dad and attorney). The bill was withdrawn pending today's hearing. I talked to my State Senator, Dave Luechtefeld, who is on the Education Committee, today as I was driving home, and he told me that he thinks he has enough votes to kill the bill permanently. He said ALL the committee members were impressed with the numbers who turned out today!!

I completely agree with the problems you list. These are the main points I plan to make if I am allowed to speak at the hearing. However, I am friends with Mike Bost, who is my State Representative. He said that we should take the bill very seriously.

I couldn't get through to Senator Maloney's office this afternoon, but I called Dave Luechtefeld's office (he's my state Senator and the minority representative on the education committee). His secretary said that she believed the committee WOULD call SB 136 for a hearing tomorrow. I will be there. I intend to speak. Dave Luechtefeld's office has said that he will support an amended bill-- i.e., one that is pointed only at homeschoolers. That TICKS ME OFF. I got a babysitter for my 3 youngest children. I will bring my 3 oldest along, even though it means we have to leave our house by 6:00 a.m. to attend the HSLDA meeting that is being held before hand. I will look forward to seeing all of you WTM'ers!!

And I am assuming you'd also have a problem with the part where it says Jesus Christ is the "only son of God."

The Nicene Creed would give Mormons a problem, actually. Our local homeschool group has a SOF, but no one is required to sign it, which is the way I prefer it.