Posted on 01/10/2005 4:47:20 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 -- The Supreme Court declined today to hear a challenge to Florida's ban on adoption by gay people, the only such state law in the country.
The justices refused without comment to consider an appeal by four Florida men who had argued that the 1977 law violated their rights to equal protection under the United States Constitution, and that it was irrational because it automatically excluded potential adoptive parents for abandoned children.
The case, Lofton v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families, 04-478, had been closely watched as a possible test case. But with the Supreme Court's refusal to consider it, the final word is that of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta.
A three-judge panel of the circuit ruled last January that the Florida Legislature had the right to enact the law. The full circuit voted, 6 to 6, not to review the panel's conclusion, leaving the plaintiffs with only a possible appeal to the Supreme Court, a hope that was dashed today.
The panel's opinion was written by Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., who noted that under Florida law adoption is not a right but a privilege.
"Because of the primacy of the welfare of the child, the state can make classifications for adoption purposes that would be constitutionally suspect in many other areas," Judge Birch wrote. People who hope to adopt, he said, "are electing to open their homes and their private lives to close scrutiny by the state."
The opinion did not condemn gay lifestyles. Referring to the plaintiff Steven Lofton, a pediatric nurse who has raised from infancy three foster children infected with the virus that causes AIDS, it noted that "by all accounts, Lofton's efforts in caring for these children have been exemplary."
Other plaintiffs in the case have also raised foster children. But foster care is meant to be temporary and cannot be seen as an automatic prelude to adoption, the ruling stated.
Child-welfare groups advocates had urged the Supreme Court to take the case. So had the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
In his January 2004 ruling, Judge Birch said the state's primary concern is not those prospective parents who would like to adopt but, rather, the children who are destined for adoption.
"Openly homosexual households represent a very recent phenomenon, and sufficient time has not yet passed to permit any scientific study of how children raised in those households fare as adults," he wrote.
"Given this state of affairs, it is not irrational for the Florida Legislature to credit one side of the debate over the other. Nor is it irrational for the Legislature to proceed with deliberate caution before placing adoptive children in an alternative, but unproven, family structure that has not yet been conclusively demonstrated to be equivalent to the marital family structure that has established a proven track record spanning centuries."
And should the State of Florida wish to reconsider its policy, "the Legislature is the proper forum for this debate," not the courts, Judge Birch wrote.
What is with the SCOTUS? They seem to not want to hear any controverisal case nowadays.
I'd rather have SCOTUS wait till O'Conner and a few other "centrist" judges have been replaced by W.
they have better things to do with their time.
W ain't appointing anybody to SCOTUS, unless Frist and friends go nuuculear on the dims..........
I think this is actually a win for the gay-rights lobby. The public got riled up recently with the sodomy case and marraige in Massachussetts, and gays would love to have things be quiet for a while. The public debate will drift to other topics and people will get used to marriage in Massachussetts. Then they can move forward again. A landmark ruling from SCOTUS on adoption right now, even if in favor of gays, could actually get the federal marriage amendment out of Congress (which is not going to happen as things stand now).
"The opinion did not condemn gay lifestyles..."
First, this is not about a "lifestyle". It's about evil, irresponsible, and unnatural sexual behavior.
Every state should follow Florida's example by banning gays (and lesbians) from adopting children. Sodomy is practiced by homosexuals, and for them to legally acquire children to exploit is an abomination, just as the Catholic priests sodomizing children is a despicable crime. Even if the adopted children are not physically abused, they will have a sick, distorted view of the institution called marriage between a man and a woman, which is the basis for civilization. Sodomites do not produce children, and they should not raise children. Homosexuals (sodomites) seek to defy the laws of nature, resulting in the world wide AIDS epidemic.
Good call on their part. Marriage is a state issue.
If they would just respect state's rights more often...
Not at all. Since the Supreme Court won't be ruling on the issue, it won't end up being like Lawrence v. Texas which made sodomy a "constitutional right" throughout the nation. Better they not rule on it as long as the Court is hovering somewhere between moderate and liberal.
sodomy is also practiced by hetros. You need a new definition.
I totally agree.
But that's my point. From the perspective of the gay rights lobby, the best outcome was for the Supreme Court to decline ot hear the case. Had the court taken up the case it could have ruled against the gay plaintiffs, thus setting precedent that states could stop gays from adopting. Or the Court could have ruled in favor of the gay plaintiffs saying states cannot restrict gays from adopting, setting off even more backlash from conservatives. I think what the gay rights lobby wants right now more than anything is some time for things to settle down, and the Supreme Court deciding to take a pass on this one is a win from their point of view.
Yes, specialy since Renquist is sick and not really active.
I'm waiting to see the American Civil Liberties Union's Christian and Jewish Rights Project. Not holding my breath though...
Just my opinion but it seems to me that by not accepting this case the court is giving Florida approval of their law, thereby encouraging other states to do the same.
We've seen how every state that has voted on it thinks of queers marrying. I think it would follow that more states will be encouraged to adopt laws banning queer adoptions.
In my book, it's a win.
It's a win for states rights and a win for America. The constitution clearly says it should be up to the states to decide "minor" issues like this. If the people of Florida want to ban gay adoption then they should be able to, just as the people of California should be able to allow it. The last thing America needs is some liberal activist judge telling states what they can and cannot do.
Little bit of a difference between man/woman and man/man. It's your argument that is irrelevant.
Why can't you people just leave kids alone? Sick bastards.
Maybe a few of them have actually read the Tenth Amendment?
What amendment is the right to adopt under again?
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.