Florida Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Adoptions

[CO Liberal]

They just mentioned it on the radio - I'll search for a link.

In the meantime, discuss.

Personally, I'm disappointed. A stable home environment should be the most important thing, regardless of the genders of the parents.

[BayCityProgressive]

1. Idiots

they are the only state in the union to do this I believe.

[CO Liberal]

2. I Found One

The first ones that came up were all links to right-wing sites, like CNA and Focus On The Family. U found this at http://www.advocate.com/ - Wayne

* * * * *

Florida conservatives praise court decision banning gay adoption

Gay rights supporters are infuriated over a federal court decision Thursday to deny five gay men in Florida the right to adopt children--even though those children have been in the men's care for years on a foster basis.

"We are living in dangerous times," said former talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell, who, along with her partner, Kelli, is a member and supporter of the Family Pride Coalition, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group for GLBT parents. O'Donnell helped to shine a national spotlight on Florida's ban on adoptions by gays, even coming out in a televised 2002 Primetime Live interview to shed light on the case. "The struggle for civil rights continues," O'Donnell said. "It is my hope this case will be heard by the Supreme Court, where this absurd discriminatory decision will be reversed. What a sad day for all Americans."

The American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project represented the three plaintiff families. Steve Lofton, one of the plaintiffs in the case, and his partner, Roger Croteau, have been the only parents that their son Bert, now 12, has known since he was an infant. A second couple, Wayne Smith and Dan Skahen, are foster parents who were hoping to adopt a child. Another man, Doug Houghton, has been the legal guardian of a boy for at least seven years. Although the child's biological father gave his approval for Houghton to become the legal parent, Houghton can't adopt under Florida law.

Florida is the only state in the nation with a complete ban on adoption by gays, whether married or single. The law--passed at the height of Anita Bryant's antigay crusade against nondiscrimination laws in Florida in the late 1970s--has withstood several challenges in state court. Florida argued that the state has a right to legislate its "moral disapproval of homosexuality" and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development. More than 3,400 children await homes in Florida.

<more>

http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=11140&sd=01/29/04

[Adapter44]

3. Can it be appealed?

Isn't FL the only state that won't allow same sex adoptions?

[holeinboatoutatsea]

4. How would this affect

those who move to Florida from another area after having adopted? Is it still considered a legal adoption? Does it affect the child's residence?

Are these dumb questions?

[atre]

8. Answers

It wouldn't. Yes. No. No.

[Fridays Child]

5. Children will remain in the cold arms of the state because...

...people in positions of power are too squeamish to confront their tortured ambivalence about own their secret desires.

[iamjoy]

6. Gay Adoptions

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

I would like to know how the so-called "Strict Constructionists" justify denying homosexuals marriage and adoption rights. Seems like the Conswervatives are the ones playing fast and loose with the Constitution. Would an attorney or poli-sci major weigh in on this?

[atre]

7. Not a poli-sci major, but here's an explanation of E.P.

But I was a poli-sci minor and am now a second-year law student (who incidentally did quite well in Constitutional Law).

The Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is a prohibition of classifications (laws that make a distinction) by state and local governments. However, only certain classifications- termed "suspect classes"- are prohibited.

(This is a very simplified treatment, but I should note that some classifications based on suspect classes will be permitted- it depends on whether the government can meet the "strict scrutiny" burden or the "intermediate scrutiny" burden, the application of which depends on which class is affected. Classifications based on race are subject to the greatest scrutiny; classifications based on gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny).

Classifications based on race are clearly prohibited. Thus, a law that says that blacks and whites cannot marry is unconstitutional. Also, a law that says that universities must use quotas to effect affirmative action policies are also unconstitutional (this is because, in the Rehnquist era, the Court has ruled that Equal Protection prohibits any classification involving the suspect class, NOT just the classification which burdens the disadvantaged members who make up the suspect class- Yeah, tell that to the drafters of the Fourteenth!)

The Court has articulated a list of "indicia of suspectness," to be used to determined whether a particular class is deserving of "suspect class" status. These include: immutable characteristics (things that can't be changed), historical disadvantages, lack of real differences between affected classes, pervasive stereotypes, inadequacy of the political process to remedy burdens, etc. Note that while most of these would appear to point to homosexuality as a suspect class, the Supreme Court has held several times that it is not- laws that discriminate against homosexuals are not afforded the same standard of review as laws that discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

Courts have applied these indicia of suspectness to create the following "suspect classes": gender, illegitimacy, national origin, etc.

Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case which held that anti-sodomy laws violate the Due Process Clause (or in O'Connor's concurrence, the Equal Protection Clause), did not rule that sexual orientation was a suspect class. Rather, they used an end-around and held that the anti-sodomy laws do not survive even the most deferential standard of review (which would apply to any law that does not involve a suspect class), "rational review," because the laws were rooted exclusively in religious morality.

FYI for everyone else: for purposes of legal jargon, this article is terribly inaccurate and misleading. For example, the court here did not bar any rights to homosexuals; it merely held that the Florida legislature can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without running afoul of the Equal Protection Clause. While that may seem like a trivial distinction, as a student of the law, I can assure you it is not.

[Exultant Democracy]

9. Those kids are so much better off in group homes

there are a lot of people who are very lucky that I don't have the power to toss thunderbolts. Stupid, stupid, blind bigotry at the expense of children is intolerable.