In a March 28 column , The Denver Post's Al Knight wrote about the possible ramifications of a Colorado House bill addressing so-called “second-parent adoptions.” But in mentioning only that the measure would allow both members of a gay couple to adopt, he omitted the fact that the bill addresses all second-parent adoptions -- not just those by homosexuals.

The column (an online version appeared March 27) follows a misleading March 14 column by Knight that, as Colorado Media Matters noted, characterized House Bill 1330 as a measure to “authorize homosexual adoption.” In fact, Colorado law currently contains no prohibition on the adoption of a child by a gay man or a lesbian.

Knight's March 28 column focused on an upcoming ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on “whether one state must honor homosexual adoptions performed in other states.” Unlike the March 14 column, Knight noted that "[c]urrent Colorado law contains no provision barring individual homosexuals from petitioning for adoption," and he referred to HB 1330 as “a law that would allow same-sex couples to use a two-stage process for the adoption of children.” Knight wrote:

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, headquartered in Denver, is expected to rule this spring on whether one state must honor homosexual adoptions performed in other states.

The case is certainly timely in view of the apparent determination of the Colorado General Assembly to pass a law that would allow same-sex couples to use a two-stage process for the adoption of children. House Bill 1330 has already passed the House and is awaiting action in the Senate.

Just last year, voters in Colorado rejected Referendum I, which would have created domestic partnerships and allowed same-sex couples the same adoption rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples. Current Colorado law contains no provision barring individual homosexuals from petitioning for adoption, but a Colorado Supreme Court ruling does bar homosexual couples from qualifying for what is commonly referred to as step-parent or second-parent adoptions. HB 1330 would overrule that decision.

[...]

Should HB 1330 become law in Colorado, it is only a matter of time before the effort will begin to change the law yet again. It will quickly be argued that homosexual couples should not be forced to adopt in a two-stage process in which first one, then the other, would seek an adoption decree. When that victory is achieved, the claim will quickly be made that the ban on gay marriage is irrational because it conflicts with laws that otherwise treat homosexual couples as the full equal of married partners.

However, in linking Referendum I to HB 1330, Knight again implied misleadingly that the bill is strictly a “gay adoption” measure. As The Gazette of Colorado Springs reported on March 14, HB 1330 would “permit adoption of children by grandparents, siblings, extended relatives, common law spouses and other adults living with the parent.” In other words, the bill would allow the members of unmarried couples -- including same-sex couples, who are unable to marry under Colorado law -- to become co-adoptive parents. The Rocky Mountain News reported on March 14 that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Alice Madden (D-Boulder), noted that “more than half the nation's children are in nontraditional homes led by single parents, grandparents or others.”

Knight's arguments in his March 14 and 28 columns regarding HB 1330 echoed Focus on the Family's characterization of the bill as being a “smokescreen” to allow homosexual couples to adopt children.