Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case on Adoption by Gay People
NY Times ^ | January 10, 2005 | DAVID STOUT

Posted on 01/10/2005 4:47:20 PM PST by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

1 posted on 01/10/2005 4:47:20 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

What is with the SCOTUS? They seem to not want to hear any controverisal case nowadays.


2 posted on 01/10/2005 4:48:59 PM PST by Better Dead Than Red (Davis College Republicans (Best Party on Campus))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Better Dead Than Red; neverdem
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I'd rather have SCOTUS wait till O'Conner and a few other "centrist" judges have been replaced by W.

3 posted on 01/10/2005 4:51:28 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Dan Rather's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Better Dead Than Red

they have better things to do with their time.


4 posted on 01/10/2005 4:53:23 PM PST by camas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I'd rather have SCOTUS wait till O'Conner and a few other "centrist" judges have been replaced by W.

W ain't appointing anybody to SCOTUS, unless Frist and friends go nuuculear on the dims..........

5 posted on 01/10/2005 4:57:05 PM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Better Dead Than Red

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).


6 posted on 01/10/2005 4:59:14 PM PST by nyg4168
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"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.


7 posted on 01/10/2005 5:07:12 PM PST by foofoopowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good call on their part. Marriage is a state issue.

If they would just respect state's rights more often...


8 posted on 01/10/2005 5:08:55 PM PST by wireplay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nyg4168
think this is actually a win for the gay-rights lobby.

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.

9 posted on 01/10/2005 5:11:51 PM PST by COEXERJ145
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: foofoopowder

sodomy is also practiced by hetros. You need a new definition.


10 posted on 01/10/2005 5:12:06 PM PST by notigar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: foofoopowder

I totally agree.


11 posted on 01/10/2005 5:16:18 PM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145

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.


12 posted on 01/10/2005 5:19:58 PM PST by nyg4168
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Yes, specialy since Renquist is sick and not really active.


13 posted on 01/10/2005 5:22:01 PM PST by Next_Time_NJ (NJ demorat exterminator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I'm waiting to see the American Civil Liberties Union's Christian and Jewish Rights Project. Not holding my breath though...


14 posted on 01/10/2005 5:24:09 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Click on my name to see what readers have said about my Christian novels!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nyg4168

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.


15 posted on 01/10/2005 5:24:35 PM PST by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Spec.4 Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"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."

In my book, it's a win.

16 posted on 01/10/2005 5:31:50 PM PST by GVnana (If I had a Buckhead moment would I know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


17 posted on 01/10/2005 5:43:33 PM PST by CaliGangsta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notigar
sodomy is also practiced by hetros. You need a new definition.

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.

18 posted on 01/10/2005 5:49:54 PM PST by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Better Dead Than Red
What is with the SCOTUS? They seem to not want to hear any controverisal case nowadays.

Maybe a few of them have actually read the Tenth Amendment?

19 posted on 01/10/2005 5:52:01 PM PST by snopercod (Due to the graphic nature of this tagline, viewer discretion is advised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"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..."

What amendment is the right to adopt under again?

20 posted on 01/10/2005 5:53:10 PM PST by cake_crumb (Leftist Credo: "One Wing to Rule Them all and to the Dark Side Bind Them")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson