Florida's Ban On Gay Adoption AFFIRMED (11th Court's Official ruling - INCREDIBLE READ)

Eleventh Circut Website ^ | Jan 28, 2004 | 11th District Court of Appeals

[gobucks]

From the 11th Circut:

*snip*

"Two years later, in light of the length of Doe’s stay in Lofton’s household, DCF offered Lofton the compromise of becoming Doe’s legal guardian. This arrangement would have allowed Doe to leave the foster care system and DCF supervision.

However, because it would have cost Lofton over $300 a month in lost foster care subsidies and would have jeopardized Doe’s Medicaid coverage, Lofton declined the guardianship option unless it was an interim stage toward adoption. Under Florida law, DCF could not accommodate this condition, and the present litigation ensued."

*snip*

CONCLUSION:

"We exercise great caution we asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate, such as the current one over the compatibility over homosexual conduct with the duties of adoptive parenthood." See Reno, 507 U.S. at 315, 113 S. Ct. at 1454; Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 281, 104 5. Ct. 2403, 2419 (1984).

The State of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who “engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity,” Cox, 627 So. 2d at 1215, and we have found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment.

Thus, any argument that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law. 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.” Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915, 923 (4th Cir. 1996). The judgment ofthe district court is AFFIRMED.

[gobucks]

This comes from the actual opinion - and it's devastatingly incisive in a way the media reports, and it seems all of them, deliberately downplayed. I strongly recommend reading it all, but especially the first few pages, and page 13.

My question is this: if these "men" really loved that HIV positive kid, why would they refuse the option that allowed them free, unsupervised guardianship?

They wanted to use the kid for political purposes, that's why. And if case workers continue to visit, and thus mess some more with the developing "who am I really" questions, well, the kid will get over it. This whole story is unreal and makes me so sick.

[gobucks]

Iron Eagle, thanks for pointing the way to this in the another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1067545/posts

[Happy2BMe]

Will post later in thread...BUMPING

[gobucks]

ping and thanks

[longtermmemmory]

why the duplicate post?

[Revel]

Now if only the USSC understood this concept of law.

[gobucks]

It's not a duplicate - it's to the actual ruling. My thought was the media report posts were omitting too many pieces of the actual story.

[Lion in Winter]

Good idea.

[longtermmemmory]

ahhh

[passionfruit]

Didn't Rosie O'Donnell adopt at least one of her kids in Fla?

[King Black Robe]

God bless those judges who actually understand the limits of their power.

[longtermmemmory]

no she did not. FL does not allow any homosexual adoption of children.

It is important (and ironic) to note they track many of the points of the FL courts in the two prior attempts.

The opinion puts to rest the difference between foster care and adoption. Foster care is an executive responsibility while adoption is legislative.

It is a very tight opinion.

For lack of a better expression, the homosexuals are screwed.

[longtermmemmory]

Forgot to add, even in divorce proceedings a recently announced homosexual mother or father can loose custody and a savy lawyer can petition and get supervised visitation.

[philetus]

2 steps forward and no steps back.

[jpsb]

God bless those judges who actually understand the limits of their power.

At last some good news, way to go Fla!

Could we maybe dump W, and slide in Jeb instead?

[SandRat]

One down 49 to go

[WOSG]

"So we are celebrating the fact that Jeb Bush allows children to be placed in the unsupervised case of homosexual couples."

No, we are celebrating judicial sanity at letting Florida makes its own decisions on family law. What was at issue was *adoption* not foster care, read the opinion!

"Jeb Bush has committed an impeachable offense."

However bad it is as public policy to allow homosexual couples to be foster parents, it is NOT impeachable, nor even against any statute in Florida. Get a grip. Ir you dont like it, that's a matter for Florida state law.

.... but let me ask you - what is *your* state's policy on this? hmmmm???


"Where is the conservative outrage?"

We should be outraged by hyperbole. Here we have an act of sanity from the Federal bench upholding the ONE STATE in the nation that actually explicitly forbids homosexual adoptions, and you take the governor to task for it not going further.

What about the *other* 49 states that do the same as well!?!?

Why isnt your outrage directed at California's wide open embrace of same-sex couples adopting, fostering, having kids through IVs etc.???

[gobucks]

Thanks for this ... another insight into the incredible lack of moral guidance on the part of leftists ... and the same old anti-kid destruction machine is at work...

You're so right too about the back lash.