Case could nullify homosexual adoptions

WorldNetDaily ^ | May 11, 2003 | None Listed

[scripter]

The California Supreme Court is considering a request by a lesbian woman that could nullify thousands of adoptions by homosexual couples in the state.

A pro-family group contends the parental-rights case exposes illegal policies of liberal judges, Gov. Gray Davis and his Department of Social Services.

Gov. Gray Davis

"Gray Davis made up his own law and pushed through gay adoptions behind the voters' backs," insisted Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a nonprofit family issues group.

The case centers on "second-parent adoption," in which a birth mother's unmarried partner adopts the mother's child, usually conceived by artificial insemination. Under this arrangement, the birth mother retains parental rights.

At a hearing Wednesday, Sharon Silverstein, who had created a second-parent adoption with her former partner, contested the arrangement as illegal.

Silverstein gave birth via artificial insemination in 1999 and had agreed to have her 10-year partner, Annette Friskopp, adopt the boy, Joshua. However, the couple split up while the adoption was pending and Silverstein withdrew her consent.

Arguing before the state Supreme Court, Silverstein's attorney John Dodd contended the consent was invalid because the "second parent" policy is illegal.

The policy, promoted by Gov. Davis and certain judges, was never authorized by the legislature, Dodd argued.

Such adoptions, the attorney maintained, were illegally "invented" by Davis' Department of Social Services.

In 1999, the Davis administration quietly rescinded a 1995 executive order by then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson that prohibited unmarried couples from adopting children and preferred married couples as prospective parents.

Thomasson noted the Davis policy is similar to rulings from judges in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay areas that approved second-parent adoptions for homosexual couples.

"Four years ago, [Davis] used deception rather than the law to promote his belief that children should be raised in a homosexual environment, despite all the evidence to the contrary," Thomasson said. "I feel sorry for the children and sorry that the people of California have had to endure this miscarriage of justice."

At the time of the governor's 1999 action, spokesman Michael Bustamante said the decision should not be interpreted to mean Davis is in favor of gay adoptions.

"The previous administration took a position on adoptions. This administration is not," Bustamante said. "This governor has made the determination that the professionals, not the state, are best suited to decide" which couples would make suitable adoptive parents.

Thomasson argued, however, "California law and the bulk of evidence agree that it's in a child's best interest to be raised by a mother and a father."

The appointed attorney for the child at the center of the dispute, Judith Klein, told justices allowing Joshua to be adopted into a torn relationship "subjects this little boy to major litigation for many years to come," the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

The Silverstein case came to the high court when it held up a 2001 appeals court decision last year that decided California law does not allow homosexual adoptions. In January, the legislature responded with a law allowing adoptions by registered domestic partners.

A decision is expected within 90 days.

Meanwhile, Thomasson's group has joined in an effort to recall Davis.

On its website, the Campaign for California Families says: "Disguising his intolerant homosexual and transsexual agenda as a 'war against hate,' Davis has signed eight laws undermining the sacred institution of marriage by awarding spousal benefits to homosexual 'partners' – this despite 61.4 percent of Californians who voted to protect marriage three years ago with Proposition 22."

[scripter]

Ping.

Homosexual Agenda Index

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

All FreeRepublic Bump Lists

[ex-Texan]

The rumor on 'the street' in Californicate is that the Gov. is 'light in the loafers' himself.

[longtermmemmory]

a child should be adopted by ONE mother and ONE father. The words mother and father have been avoided like the plauge. It is becoming like "brave new world" where the word MOTHER is as obscene and vulgar as "f***"

[Greybird]

Two adults who both love a child, one of them with no biological connection? Well, we just can't have that level of generosity being allowed in this society, now, can we? So we'd better start with prohibiting adoption by gay and lesbian couples, however formed, and then proceed to denying such adoptions in all second (third, etc. ...) marriages. How dare anyone in such couples actually care for and feed, and bestow their surname upon children who are not their biological "own"!

O'course, none of this generosity is really necessary, due to another factor: the overwhelming tide of "pro-life" people who actually are avoiding being hypocritical about their convictions. And who take full-term babies who might have been aborted into their own homes at their own expense. Why, such consistent, upstanding Christians have practically eliminated "illegitimacy" in this country. Especially with all the millions of black babies now being joyously adopted by white suburban couples.

{/sarcasm OFF}

[scripter]

We know gay foster parents are more apt to molest and there's a link, a likelihood and we know the lasting effects of homosexuality and child molestation. We have a report entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse.

We also know homosexuals target children: Part 1 and Part 2

Here's something everybody should read:

The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game

[scripter]

The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) has officially and publicly announced their opposition to transracial adoptions; specifically, the adoption of black children by white families (Adopting by Color).

We have adopted two boys and now we're hoping to adopt a girl. We're adopting through the local government (the county) and they will not place a black child with us, nor with an hispanic family. We've seen it with our own eyes and ears. Instead, it appears they would rather place black children with black single parents. The county is getting pressure from somewhere to enforce this perhaps unwritten rule.

That's not to say it doesn't happen. We've met white Christian foster parents who have adopted (through the county) two black boys who graduated from high school and doing very well. It seems something has changed from the time of their adoption through today, and it's wrong.

[Carry_Okie]

There's nothing quite like a false premise to bolster an argument. Interracial adoptions with blacks are almost impossible.

You should see more of these lesbian "couples." In the majority of instances, their motives aren't about loving a kid; they're about self-validation. My wife works in an in-vitro clinic and deals with them all the time.

Just because it is possible that a gay couple could raise a child in a nurturing environment doesn't make it good policy.

[First Amendment]

Why, such consistent, upstanding Christians have practically eliminated "illegitimacy" in this country. Especially with all the millions of black babies now being joyously adopted by white suburban couples.

There are so many abortions that couples (meaning husband and wife) who want to adopt BABIES have a very hard time, costs thousands of dollars, red tape, often waiting for years, and then sometimes the birth mothers demand tham back after years of bonding. Why are there classified ads in every newspaper from married couples offering to adopt babies? The myth that people don't want to adopt is a myth. But people naturally want infants. It's very difficult to adopt a child that already has emtional scars, not every one can do it.

And as far as white couples adopting black babies, a lot of black acitivists (or whatever) hate it because the children won't be raised to have a "black identity".

[EdReform]

BTTT

[scripter]

The myth that people don't want to adopt is a myth. But people naturally want infants. It's very difficult to adopt a child that already has emotional scars, not every one can do it.

It's very true most want infants. Our boys were 7-months-old and 5-years-old when they came to live with us. The bond between us and the 7-month-old (now 2 1/2-years-old) is very strong. The bond between us and the 5-year-old (now 7-years-old) is still in its infancy but growing. His emotional scars are very deep and it hasn't always been easy. Because of everything we've gone through, we have requested the next adopted child (a girl) to be from birth to 1-year-old.

Indeed, most want infants for good reason, but they keep getting aborted.

[First Amendment]

Bless you and your wife for adopting children! I just wish women who didn't want their babies would save their lives and give them to loving parents.