Posted on 02/17/2006 7:04:20 PM PST by Stellar Dendrite
Judge: Lesbian couple can be foster parents By JOHN SHULTZ The Kansas City Star
Missouri cannot block an openly gay Kansas City woman’s efforts to become a foster parent because of her sexual orientation, a Jackson County judge ruled today.
In her decision, Circuit Judge Sandra Midkiff ruled the state arbitrarily denied Lisa Johnston’s petition to become a foster parent because she is a lesbian.
Johnston and partner Dawn Roginski sought to become foster parents in 2003, but their efforts were stymied by an unwritten state social services policy prohibiting gays from becoming foster parents.
The state argued that Johnston lacked the “reputable character” required by state guidelines for approving foster parents because she was in violation of Missouri’s anti-sodomy law.
Midkiff dismissed the argument, citing a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that found a similar law in Texas to be unconstitutional. If the sodomy law was unenforceable, Midkiff ruled, Missouri had no legal basis for denying Johnston’s application. Johnston and Roginiski were found to be exceptional candidates otherwise by the state.
“I’m overwhelmed with joy,” said Johnston, who had yet to discuss the ruling with her attorney. “I feel like we were heard.”
The American Civil Liberties Union had taken up Johnston’s case.
If they're both good people who will provide a safe and secure environment for children in need, I don't see a problem.
The 2003 Texas case involved private acts between consenting adults. Lawrence never demanded that governments approve of the gay agenda.
It's wierd, but as long as they aren't pulverizing the baby like so many "normal" couples, I won't oppose it.
do they have a brokeback mountain cartoon for kids?
I wonder what the judge would say if they were his kids..
It's a married woman judge.
appointed by Socialist former Gov. of MO, Bob Holden
ok, 'her' kids.
wonder when there will be affirmative action for homosexual adoption?
This is a gross perversion of justice. Seems we have some judges who need a good, heavy iron pipe upside the head.
Chances aren't real good for foster kids growing up normal anyway. They have gotten a pretty rough start in life. Good foster parents are in short supply. Many foster children end up in group homes, which are horrible. I don't have any problem with these women offering to help these children, in fact, I think it is a very kind thing to do.
Justice Scalia, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 844 (1992). That was the Court’s sententious response, barely more than a decade ago, to those seeking to overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The Court’s response today, to those who have engaged in a 17-year crusade to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), is very different. The need for stability and certainty presents no barrier.
(...)State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision;
(...)The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are “immoral and unacceptable,” Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, “furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,” ante, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens’ declaration in his Bowers dissent, that “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,” ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review. (...)
(...) One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.” Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress (...)
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.
For myself, I would not want a faggy father or a dykey mom.
I don't think that we should force that fate on orphans either. It's cruel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.