Miami judge rules against Florida gay adoption ban

[LiberalNation]

Good

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_re_us/gay_adoptions;_ylt=ApHkP_dj6mA0W1qtXYWNaoVvzwcF

MIAMI – A judge on Tuesday overturned a strict Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children."

She noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida. "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting," she wrote in a 53-page ruling.

Florida is the only state with an outright ban on gay adoption. Arkansas voters last month approved a measure similar to a law in Utah that bans any unmarried straight or gay couples from adopting or fostering children. Mississippi bans gay couples, but not single gays, from adopting.

The ruling means that Martin Gill, 47, and his male partner can adopt two brothers, ages 4 and 8, whom he has cared for as foster children since December 2004.

"I've never seen myself as less than anybody else," Gill said. "We're very grateful. Today, I've cried the first tears of joy in my life."

He said the two boys have been practicing writing their new last names, and the older one said: "That's what's going to make us a family."

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent Gill, said the case was the first in the nation in which numerous experts in child psychology, social work and other fields testified that there is no science to justify a gay adoption ban.

The state planned a swift appeal, likely setting up a battle that could reach the Florida Supreme Court. A judge in gay-friendly Key West also found the law unconstitutional in September, but that ruling has not been appealed and has limited legal reach.

The state presented experts who claimed there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among gay couples, that they were more unstable than heterosexual unions and that the children of gay couples suffer a societal stigma.

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association all support permitting same-sex couples to adopt.

Lederman rejected all the state's arguments soundly.

"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent," the judge wrote. "A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs."

Florida Assistant Attorney General Valerie Martin said an appeal would be filed on behalf of the state Department of Children & Families. She declined additional comment.

[avatar4321]

How on earth do you honestly strike down a law claiming their is no legal reason for it? By definition if there is a law tere is a legal reason. The argument makes absolutely no sense.

[darin]

If this judge were a thundercat....

ACTI ----ACTI-----ACTIVISIM HOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(sigh).

That judge is a moron. Foolish. That judge hates kids by her action. Maybe she's on the payroll of shrinks who stand to make MILLIONS trying to un-fuck the minds of kids brought up in such an environment. :(

[The ClayTaurus]

How on earth do you honestly strike down a law claiming their is no legal reason for it? By definition if there is a law tere is a legal reason. The argument makes absolutely no sense.What if there was a law that claimed midgets shouldn't be allowed to adopt?

[darin]

Hi red herring!

[The ClayTaurus]

Hi red herring!Hi non sequitur!

[Des]

Good. I wonder how many opposed to it have adopted children themselves after depriving children the chance to live in a stable home with their votes.

[avatar4321]

What if there was a law that claimed midgets shouldn't be allowed to adopt?

Then there is still clearly legal reasons for the law. the identity of the people doesnt change the fact that the argument is stupid.

[avatar4321]

Good. I wonder how many opposed to it have adopted children themselves after depriving children the chance to live in a stable home with their votes.

No one has mentioned anything about a stable home.

[The ClayTaurus]

Then there is still clearly legal reasons for the law. the identity of the people doesnt change the fact that the argument is stupid.So your issue is purely with the legal speak used? If the law was "It's ok to rape and kill children" and they overturned the law saying there was no legal basis, you'd have the same reaction?

[Des]

No one has mentioned anything about a stable home.

A single home with a loving parent/parents is more stable than foster care/group homes.

[darin]

Clay - TRY to stay on topic :)

[The ClayTaurus]

Clay - TRY to stay on topic :)I am. Thanks.

[Trigg]

Growing up is hard enough these days without the added pressure on kids to explain their gay parents.

They arn't doing these kids any favors.



My mother was a foster parent for many many years and our home was very stable as were others in our area. People become foster parents because they care about children, it certainly isn't about the money.

[Des]

Growing up is hard enough these days without the added pressure on kids to explain their gay parents.

They arn't doing these kids any favors.



My mother was a foster parent for many many years and our home was very stable as were others in our area. People become foster parents because they care about children, it certainly isn't about the money.


You're right. Only white Christian people who stand 6'0 feet tall and are right handed should be allowed to adopt children. And no child has ever complained about not having a permanent home.

[Little-Acorn]

I'd guess one of the issues was whether children raised by gay same-sex "parents" were more likely to wind up gay themselves, than children raised by opposite-sex straight parents. Maybe even the principal issue.

Are you born gay? Or do you acquire it from your environment?

Both parties probably brought in experts to argue each way. And the judge clearly sided with the born-gay side (i.e. yor environment, whether your "parents" are gay, has no effect).

I'd like to hear the judge's reasons for deciding that way. "Not enough reason not to" doesn't cut it, clearly: it's either course A or course B.

[Des]

I'd guess one of the issues was whether children raised by gay same-sex "parents" were more likely to wind up gay themselves, than children raised by opposite-sex straight parents. Maybe even the principal issue.

Are you born gay? Or do you acquire it from your environment?

If that were the case, all children living with straight parents would grow up to be straight.

[avatar4321]

So your issue is purely with the legal speak used? If the law was "It's ok to rape and kill children" and they overturned the law saying there was no legal basis, you'd have the same reaction?

Yes, because the argument is absurd. There is no legal basis for a law when by definition a law is legal basis for itself.

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes, because the argument is absurd. There is no legal basis for a law when by definition a law is legal basis for itself.Fair enough. Thanks for carrying the discussion through. :thup:

[Little-Acorn]

I'd guess one of the issues was whether children raised by gay same-sex "parents" were more likely to wind up gay themselves, than children raised by opposite-sex straight parents. Maybe even the principal issue.

If that were the case, all children living with straight parents would grow up to be straight.

DMP was right. You're being obtuse.

Back to the subject:
Are children of gay "parents" more likely to be gay themselves, than children of straight parents? I'd guess that both sides were argued in court, probably with "expert witnesses", who probably contradicted each other. So the judge had to pick one answer or the other. He picked the born-gay side, evidently.

If it were a coin toss - that is, if either way looked equally likely to the judge, with no way to favor one over the other - he would have had to default to the "traditional" upbringing of children by opposite-sex parents. In such a case, there would be "not enough reason" to start accepting gay same-sex couples as "parents". Clearly, he saw more substance in the arguments for same-sex gay parents, than the arguments for straight opposite-sex parents.

Again, I'd like to know what this reasoning was.

[Yurt]

Yes, because the argument is absurd. There is no legal basis for a law when by definition a law is legal basis for itself.

so you are saying that the court in striking it down should have relied on law, like EP, DP, etc..., instead of merely saying the law has no legal basis. i am pretty sure i understand what you are saying, but i think others may not.

if i may...it is like the judge saying...there is no foundation in the law for that rule/law...when there is a code dealing directly with the issue, so there is in fact foundation

[Missileman]

I'd guess one of the issues was whether children raised by gay same-sex "parents" were more likely to wind up gay themselves, than children raised by opposite-sex straight parents. Maybe even the principal issue.

Are you born gay? Or do you acquire it from your environment?

Both parties probably brought in experts to argue each way. And the judge clearly sided with the born-gay side (i.e. yor environment, whether your "parents" are gay, has no effect).

I'd like to hear the judge's reasons for deciding that way. "Not enough reason not to" doesn't cut it, clearly: it's either course A or course B.

CLEARLY, being raised in a heterosexual home doesn't guarantee heterosexual offspring. As a matter of fact, I'd say that it's statistically likely that at least 95% of homosexuals were raised in a heterosexual household. If 5% of children raised in heterosexual homes wind up homosexual, it stands to reason that 5% raised in homosexual homes will.

[Trigg]

You're right. Only white Christian people who stand 6'0 feet tall and are right handed should be allowed to adopt children. And no child has ever complained about not having a permanent home.

Great job completely twisting what I said.


You are the same person in another thread that complained that people here don't really debate right??????? So come on, stay on subject, and discuss what people ACTUALLY say, instead of your made up interpretations.

[Des]

CLEARLY, being raised in a heterosexual home doesn't guarantee heterosexual offspring. As a matter of fact, I'd say that it's statistically likely that at least 95% of homosexuals were raised in a heterosexual household. If 5% of children raised in heterosexual homes wind up homosexual, it stands to reason that 5% raised in homosexual homes will.

Stop being obtuse. ;)

[Des]

Great job completely twisting what I said.


You are the same person in another thread that complained that people here don't really debate right??????? So come on, stay on subject, and discuss what people ACTUALLY say, instead of your made up interpretations.

Because the argument against any loving family being able to adopt a child is usually absurd, it's hard "debating" it. What would your criteria be? What kind of families would you not allow to adopt children? Why do you think a child is better off growing up in the foster care system than belonging to a single home as a permanent part of that family? I have heard arguments against almost every sort of "traditional" family adopting children- from military families to athiest ones...and they are all completely unreasonable. There is not just one type of family. Sure, there is an "ideal". Ideally, human beings would either a) conform to a certain standard naturally or b) tolerate those who don't. Since "a" will never happen, which is one of the things that makes human beings so wonderful...I'd like to see more of "b". Including the idea that a loving family doesn't have to conform to a set ideal someone has. Especially when a great number of those people have never adopted children themselves.

[Trigg]

Because the argument against any loving family being able to adopt a child is usually absurd, it's hard "debating" it. What would your criteria be? What kind of families would you not allow to adopt children?
Why do you think a child is better off growing up in the foster care system than belonging to a single home as a permanent part of that family? I have heard arguments against almost every sort of "traditional" family adopting children- from military families to athiest ones...and they are all completely unreasonable. There is not just one type of family. Sure, there is an "ideal". Ideally, human beings would either a) conform to a certain standard naturally or b) tolerate those who don't. Since "a" will never happen, which is one of the things that makes human beings so wonderful...I'd like to see more of "b". Including the idea that a loving family doesn't have to conform to a set ideal someone has. Especially when a great number of those people have never adopted children themselves.

All right lets start at the beginning shall we.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean my argument is absurd, it simply means we disagree.

I never said children are better off growing up in the foster care system. I did however disagree with your statement that foster care isn't good for a child. Foster parents are in it for the love of children, not the money. Sure there are a few bad apples, but most are devoted to the children in their care.

I have 2 teenagers right now. It is hard growing up these days, being an adopted child can be even harder, add to that gay parents that need to be explained to every new friend and it's just more stress on these kids.

IMO this is a social experiment that doesn't need to happen.

[avatar4321]

IMO this is a social experiment that doesn't need to happen.

The problem with social experiments like this is it takes a generation or two before you realize how bad the experiment really was for the child. By then youve already screwed up society for generations.

[Trigg]

The problem with social experiments like this is it takes a generation or two before you realize how bad the experiment really was for the child. By then youve already screwed up society for generations.

Exactly. We won't know the consequences of gay adoption for 20 years.

We do already know that Asian and black children adopted by white couples often have identity issues. That should give people an idea of the struggles straight children in gay households might encounter.

[Des]

Exactly. We won't know the consequences of gay adoption for 20 years.

We do already know that Asian and black children adopted by white couples often have identity issues. That should give people an idea of the struggles straight children in gay households might encounter.


I suppose it would be wrong for two people of a different race to have a child, then, because that child might struggle with identity issues. Or for a single woman to be able to raise her own child alone without a father, or for absolutely anyone to be able to adopt or have a child that might cause them any sort of issues. Do you not realize how absurd it is to insist that adoption, something a person does that comes from their heart, must fit into a preconceived notion of what a perfect family is?

Natural children of disfunctional families struggle with many issues, too. It's nothing but discrimination based on faulty notions about homosexual relationships and adoption.

[Nukeman]

I suppose it would be wrong for two people of a different race to have a child, then, because that child might struggle with identity issues. Or for a single woman to be able to raise her own child alone without a father, or for absolutely anyone to be able to adopt or have a child that might cause them any sort of issues. Do you not realize how absurd it is to insist that adoption, something a person does that comes from their heart, must fit into a preconceived notion of what a perfect family is?

Natural children of disfunctional families struggle with many issues, too. It's nothing but discrimination based on faulty notions about homosexual relationships and adoption.


Completely ignoring the FACT, as stated in fact by our President elect, that biracial children do have identity problems. Since this is between consenting adults and their biological children I have no comment on that.

Getting back to the subject. Are you in denial that children in trans racial adoptions have identity issues????????

Trigg has said nothing about "perfect families" she has said that children have enough stresses in their lives, adding gay parents on top of that isn't fair to the child. I work with homosexuals every day, so "faulty" notions have nothing to do with my oppinions.

Trigg and avatar are right, this is a social experiment being perpetrated on innocent children.

[Des]

Completely ignoring the FACT, as stated in fact by our President elect, that biracial children do have identity problems. Since this is between consenting adults and their biological children I have no comment on that.

Getting back to the subject. Are you in denial that children in trans racial adoptions have identity issues????????

Trigg has said nothing about "perfect families" she has said that children have enough stresses in their lives, adding gay parents on top of that isn't fair to the child. I work with homosexuals every day, so "faulty" notions have nothing to do with my oppinions.

Trigg and avatar are right, this is a social experiment being perpetrated on innocent children.

Nothing was ignored. Every child in every enviroment has the potential for identity or other problems, either by nature or as a result of the enviroment. Not all biracial children have identity problems. Some do. Not all children who grow up in abusive homes end up abusing their children. Some do.

You are attempting to define an ideal family at the expense of the potential adoptive children and their chance to belong to a permanent home. It's not much different than attempting to define an ideal family in terms of biological children. The difference is in the outcome you are suggesting, which could happen equally with both, so I don't see what the point is.

The idea that children adopted to homosexual partners, as long as those people meet the same requirements as other potential adoptive families, would suffer because they would have to explain to others that their parents are homosexual is absurd. It's like saying I shouldn't adopt a child to a parent with one arm or a family of overweight people because it could lead to ridicule. It makes no sense and is an attempt to make an outdated argument seem intelligent.