I agree with that, but keep in mind that there was a senate bill on the table today and yesterday that would delete that as a disqualifier. I haven't heard how that went. Curious that it is out there NOW though, don't you think?
Indeed. I don't know whether it's one of those silly bills people introduce that never goes anywhere, or if it would be potentially dangerous.
While I'll admit that some of the restrictions should probably be relaxed a little as a practical matter (e.g. suppose a mother and father are killed, and the only sibling of either is cohabiting with his fiancée; should that make him unsuitable as a guardian for his niece/nephew?) I think it important to change the law so as to make clear that certain lewd and lacivious behavior is still unacceptable, and further to do so in such a way as to make clear that the restrictions are not new restrictions but pre-existing ones and thus their retrospective enforcement would not be retroactive.
This is not necessarily about Terri. This part of the 'Gay Rights' agenda, and that wording will definately prevent one homo from being the 'guardian' of his lover. That is what I think it's about. Florida has the highest percentage of gays in the U.S.