RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »


Florida: Will state (f)law continue its fall?

by Jeremy Hooper

200811250912Florida. Due in large part to the mid-70's work of the pretty lady to our left, the Sunshine State still, to this day, has a ban on gay adoption. A sweeping, particularly nasty ban on gay adoption. From Pensacola to Key West, potential households are judged not on their merits, but on whether the heads of households' fears of getting razor burn while kissing is either doubled or completely nixed. It is a shortsighted roadblock that is harmful to everyone, most of all the countless kids who could use a nice home.

In recent months we've seen some hope that the ban is being chipped away, with Circuit Court judge David J. Audlin ruling in September that the ban is unconstitutional. But today we will see an even larger ruling on the matter, as a Miami-Dade child welfare judge is expected to issue a decision sometime this morning:

Ruling is expected on gay adoption ban [Miami Herald]

*What the ACLU had to say yesterday: Decision Tomorrow in Challenge to Florida’s Ban on Adoption by Gay People [ACLU]

Now, just like the earlier ruling, a positive outcome today wouldn't inconvertibly eliminate the ban, but would instead lead to an appeal that will keep the battle alive in more and bigger courts. However, it would be a major step on the road towards inevitable victory, so keep your fingers crossed for a positive ruling. If not for yourself, then for the children. If not for the children, then for a more peaceful world. If not for a peaceful world, then for the joy that comes from imagining a now-68-year-old Anita sitting in her La-Z-Boy stewing over the elimination of her life's ignoble work!

**UPDATE: YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper

Your thoughts

Per ACLU Blog: Decided as an EQUAL RIGHTS case....hear that folks?? Also for child protection...
" The court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution because it singles out gay people and children raised by gay people for different treatment for no rational reason. The court also found that the ban denies children the right to permanency provided by federal and state law under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997."


Posted by: LOrion | Nov 25, 2008 7:23:52 PM

...and someone please tell me why this isn't part of the argument in Arkansas too?

In reaching its decision, the court rejected the false assumptions and stereotypes about gay people that the state offered to justify the ban, holding that many “reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”

Posted by: LOrion | Nov 25, 2008 7:28:29 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails