Posted on 01/28/2004 6:27:16 PM PST by Kieri
Gay Men Lose Challenge to Florida Gay Adoption Ban
By Catherine Wilson Associated Press Writer Published: Jan 28, 2004
MIAMI (AP) - Four gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children, a statute passed at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the men, who are foster parents seeking to adopt children in their care despite the 1977 law.
"Obviously we're crushed," said Paul Cates with the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
Gov Jeb Bush said he was "pleased" by the ruling. It validates Florida's contention "that it is in the best interest of adoptive children, many of whom come from troubled and unstable backgrounds, to be placed in a home anchored both by a father and a mother," he said in a statement.
Florida is the only state in the nation with a complete ban on adoption by gays, whether married or single. The law linked to the movement led by Bryant has withstood several challenges in state court.
Florida argued the state has a right to legislate its "moral disapproval of homosexuality" and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development.
"We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate," Judge Stanley Birch wrote in the unanimous decision by the three-judge panel. "Any argument that the Florida Legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law."
Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative civil liberties legal group, hailed the decision. "In this age of judicial activism, it is refreshing to see a court assume its proper role and allow the people to set family policy," he said.
An after-hours call to the attorney who argued the state's case was not immediately returned.
The decision comes as states react to court rulings favoring gay marriage and a Supreme Court decision in June striking down laws criminalizing gay sex.
"We think the court is wrong in thinking that the Constitution lets the government assume that sexual orientation has anything to do with good parenting," the ACLU's Cates said.
The ACLU expects to take at least a week before deciding how to proceed. It could ask the full appeals court to consider the issue.
Edward Schiappa, a University of Minnesota law professor who follows gay rights issues, believes the case is destined for Supreme Court review next year. He believes the state will have a hard time defending the law there because of its inconsistent policy allowing gay foster parents while banning gay adoptive parents.
"This has become an extraordinarily hot political button," he said.
AP-ES-01-28-04 2053EST
It's not just our constitution, it's 5000 years of civilization that has made abundantly clear the fact that a two parent, male and female household is the best place to raise stable families.
That is the most stupid reasoning I have ever seen. It does not give a pass to homosexuals just because there's disfunction in some "normal" people. Disfunctional people shouldn't be able to adopt either.
The problem is that two 'gay' men CANNOT raise a child to a proper conservative Christian manhood because they know NOTHING about proper Christian manhood.
If they were Christian then they wouldn't be practicing deviant sexual behaviors. If they were real men then they'd accept the fact that their behaviors are deviant and they'd seek to get cured of them.
Two 'gay' guys raising a boy only means that that boy is going to get molested. If the 'parents' don't molest him, their friends will.
For the safety of our children every 'homosexual' must be considered a child molester. After all, in the "Gay Report" 73% of male 'homosexuals' admitted to molesting children
Actually, that's the weak link.
It contradicts the fact that Florida allows for gay foster parents, and diverts the attention from the true argument, being that children who require foster homes, are best served by placement in a more mainstream family in order to promote stability, and gives the opposition the opportunity to argue that the State is legislating in its own self-interest, rather than in the interest of the child.
Argue in favor of the right of the child, rather than in favor of the right of the State.
"The legislature is the proper forum for this debate, and we do not sit as a superlegislature to award by judicial decree what was not achievable by political consensus," it said.
I almost fell out of my chair when I realized a judge wrote this. I am flabbergasted.
"We think the court is wrong in thinking that the Constitution lets the government assume that sexual orientation has anything to do with good parenting," the ACLU's Cates said.
I wonder if Cates wold think that guy in Germany who advertised for someone who wanted to be eaten, then ate him, could make a wonderful father.
Just remember, orientation is not a trait. There are thousands of ex-gays who say so.
Shalom.
Those aren't the only two choices (assuming two gays could raise to a "proper conservative Christian manhood."
Homosexuality is a mental illness. We should not knowingly give children to the mentally ill.
Shalom.
Married?
All gay adoption is child abuse.
Typical liberal reporting. Load up the bias in the story. It could just as easily been written "...pro-family campaign."
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.