Posted on 09/16/2004 1:11:19 PM PDT by presidio9
Three homosexual couples filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday seeking to overturn a law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states and countries.
The lawsuit alleges the measure, which is an amendment to the Oklahoma Adoption Code, "appears to sever legal ties between parents and their children whenever families led by same-gender couples enter the state of Oklahoma."
Gov. Brad Henry signed the law in May. It was drafted by 17 state lawmakers after Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued an opinion in April requiring the state to recognize all adoptions, regardless of the gender of parents.
A gay couple from Washington state, Ed Swaya and Greg Hampel, sought the opinion when they asked for a birth certificate listing both of them as their daughter's parents. The state Health Department had initially refused to list Swaya because he was not the birth mother.
The couple adopted their daughter from an Oklahoma woman. Now they fear they would lose their legal rights as parents if they visited the birth mother.
Swaya and Hampel are two of 10 plaintiffs, including the couples' children.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
You are sick! Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt kids, that are not their own. Its all about people who are so self-centered that all they think about is what they want, and dam anyone else. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? Studies have shown that two same sex couples are the worst thing for children. Also, gay parents tend to be less stable and more abusive. It come down to we should not be experimenting with the lives of children, just to appease perverts.
Personally, I am not 100% convinced that the Loggers are not a sham movement devised by the buttsex conspiracy to distract our party's base.
But, given my earlier point about herniated rectums, perhaps "movement" is an unfortunate choice of words....
The court restated this principle in Sun Oil CO V Wortman 486 US 717 (1988) where it stated "The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel a state to substitute the statutes of another state for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate."
In regards to the Adoption Ban, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the Florida Adoption Law. In that decision, the court made clear what others have stated all along, Lawrence V Texas DID NOT Establish a Fundamental right to anything, instead it used only a very limited rational basis test. Marriage laws and Adoption Laws can pass a rational basis test.
Further Case law from the 11th Circuit upheld an Alabama ban on sex toys, and made clear the there is no fundamental right to "autonomy" or "privacy" as the ACLU spews.
In addition, in regards to marriage, a case that the perverts and activists never talk about is Baker V Nelson.
In that Case the United States Supreme Court affirmed that states can prohibit deviant perverts from redefining the marriage institution.
Yeah right...wait til the friends come over and the lights go out.
presidio9 wrote:
But, given my earlier point about herniated rectums, perhaps "movement" is an unfortunate choice of words..
If it was up to me you could let Charlie Manson raise your kids.
I have a small tutoring business in rural Ontario.
I tutored a twelve year old girl last year and her mother had a live-in partner.
This poor kid was totally ashamed of the whole thing. Whenever the "partner" dropped her off for lessons, she quickly got out of the van and came to my door, hoping I would not be there to greet her and see the "partner".
She kept her head down most of the time and offered very little in the way of conversation (at first). Just very short and to-the-point answers. No eye contact for a long time.
I went out of my way to make her feel comfortable, never mentioned the situation and spoke to and of her mother with a great deal of respect. She began to thaw a little and ended up chatting quite a bit with me and feeling very comfortable.
I could see the shame she bore was great, and IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF SOCIETY. It was the fault of her self-centered, me-first mother. What a horrible situation to put your child in....as if having a child provides you with a forum for your social experimentation. Shame on them all. They do it to try to make themselves feel normal.
Generally I sympathize with them because they are so lost, but when they drag the kids into it, then I am angered.
Thanks for letting me rant, I feel better.
lol you have the book?
I am in a bad mood right now and that excerpt sounds so hokey as to render it "unintentional parody of idiot special intrest groups by a special interest group"
I'm not talking about a moral judgement, I'm talking about a legal judgement. It seems to me that the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution requires State A to recognize an adoption that has been legally executed in State B.
I'm no lawyer. I could be wrong. I'm stating a layman's opinion, and using it to illustrate why I believe that there's good odds that State DOMA's are not worth the paper they are printed on.
I'm not a lawyer either,but the problem I have with your view is that is would open the door to much more then the homosexual agenda.Oregonians could come to OK to commit suicide which is legal in that state,floridians could import their belief that you can allow some to be put to death by starving them and it would go on and on.Even if Oklahoma passed such a law,I as an Oklahoman,would not recognize or support that law.IF it is supported by the U.S. Constitution,I'll recognize it.
There's a difference between, say, assisted suicide and marriage (no comments from divorced FReepers, please). If State A made assisted suicide legal and someone from State B (where it's illegal) came to State A to do this, no one from State A could be prosecuted in Stage B because the act didn't occur in State B. There is no requirement on State B to recognize as legitimate the act taken in State A because State B has no juristiction in State A.
Conversely, if two people from State A moved to State B and then one assisted the other in suicide, the one still alive could be prosecuted by State B because that's where the act occurred.
But if a same-sex couple in State A got married and then moved to State B, they have a piece of paper that says they're married. That's a public act, like a contract, not a criminal (or non-criminal, depending on the state) action such as suicide. To my reading, the "full faith and credit" clause requires that to be recognized across the country.
Now, there's a posting upthread here that says I'm wrong. Maybe so. I'm not a lawyer. What I figure is that at some point, a same-sex couple, legally married in some state that allows it, will move to a state that doesn't and challenge that state's laws. That'll go all the way to the Supremes, regardless of which side wins initially and on appeals. And then we'll see.
I'm saying that I'm betting that OK loses this. I'm not saying that's right.
And, in fact, this case is a good stalking horse for the validity of State DOMAs. So this will be worth while following for that sake, too. Again, I bet this goes all the way to the Supremes.
Since when are adoptive parents ever listed on a BIRTH certificate?
The state Health Department had initially refused to list Swaya because he was not the birth mother.
Unless he carried the child in his womb for nine months and then gave birth, he is NOT the birth mother.
gee there sure is alot of bigotry and homophobia on here the majority of the self righteous bigots on here should be ashamed of themselevs how dare you lot criticise and use your typical out of date and ignorant views on homosexuals.
the majority of you people on here are dam homophobes and why simply because you dont like people that are different to you you feel that gives you the right to hate them and condem them.
shame on all of you you lot are friggin gutless and insecure and you hide behind your book of lies which is the bible and you use god as an excuse to hate people that are different to all of you.
i know that not all people on here are ignorant but most of you are so shame on the rest of you shame shame shame on you.
god is not pleased with your arogance bigotry and prejudice.
Only a heterosexual coupling can create a child; only a heterosexual family can properly rear one.
The vast majority of the heterosexual families I have known in my 51 years of life have done an excellent job rearing children.
In an analogous sense, what I suspect will happen in the case of a homosexual couple is that the law will recognize only one of them as the adoptive parent. The other will have no legal status vis a vis the child.
Your lucky day, you got the intolerent mod.
You would be shocked how well homosexuals can protect their children from the outside world. Around here (Philly) they all live in the same sections of the city and send their kids to Friends (Quaker) schools. They may not be in the majority there, but they are definitely embraced. These children grow up thinking their parents' lifestyle is just another way of life. And anyone who doesn't respect it is a bigot.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
All adults have privilege to marry one consenting adult of opposite gender; therefore, Fourteenth Amendment "equal protection" argument about "privileges and immunities" for homosexual marriage is invalid. Driving, marriage, legal and medical practices are not enumerated rights; they are privileged practices that require statutory license. Nothing that requires a license is a right.
Homosexual monogamy advocates are a cult of perversion seeking ceremonious sanctification for voluntary deviancy with anatomical function and desperately pursuing esoteric absolution to justify their guilt-ridden egos. This has no secular standard; it is an idolatrous fetish. Why not properly apply the adjudicated Reynolds 'separation of church and state' here? No person can logically say that carnal practices engaged by homosexuals are consistent with human anatomical function. It is obvious, and an impervious secular argument to say that biology is a standard by which we can measure. The hormonal drive to mate is biologically heterosexual. Either homosexuality is a choice, a birth defect, or it is a mental illness. Take your pick.
Morality and all of its associated concepts are from the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior. Today, "morals" are a religious pagan philosophy of esoteric hobgoblins where transfiguration is from pantheons of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
Was Freudian psychoanalytic theory of sexual stages in psychological development more accurate than accredited? The Michael Jackson Complex is an obvious fixation on mutilation of and deviance with human anatomy in the media. It is indicative of a societal mental illness that caters to the lowest common denominator and generated with Pavlovian behavioral conditioning in popular culture.
Should we really be canonizing special societal privileges in the law based on a person's idolatrous fetishes? Perhaps homosexual monogamy and civil union advocates could conclave to enshrine their own phantasmal state religion and consecrate Michael Jackson as its first Ecumenical Pope!
The greater question is if the Congress can pass a law defining what lawful marriage is without a Constitutional Amendment and the Supreme Court has said yes, upholding that power. Congress can pass a marriage definition and enforcement law under the powers conferred to it by Reynolds v. United States...
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
- - See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
The important aspect is the power of Congress and the state legislatures (not local municipalities or the courts) to legislate, by statute alone, restrictions on marriage. The Congress can either make lawful polygamy and homosexual marriage, or make both illegal based on what the Congress thinks will be beneficial. The Defense of Marriage Act by Congress and constitutional prohibitions by many of the states is consistent with these ends: Reynolds v. United States is legal precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Activist elements of the judiciary have ignored the case law precedent set by the Supreme Court concerning statutory law regulating marriage practices and corrupted the Constitutional 'separation of powers' by legislating from the bench. It is time legislative and executive bodies of government do their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.
Legislators need to impeach and remove judges from the courts (and other officials from public office) who break the law by acting beyond their legal jurisdiction. This is not exclusive to an issue of "states' rights" at all…
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.