Posted on 01/12/2005 5:44:55 AM PST by KMC1
REfusing to hear a case is NOT a win. At best, it is a stay.
Does the ACLU think that alcoholics should have the right to adopt? Do they want to grant kleptomaniacs that right? How about paranoid schizophrenics or manic-depressives or obsessive-compulsives? Should they be granted the right to adopt?
Gays are not uniquely evil, but they have a condition that children cannot be exposed to without being affected in a bad way. In any event, there are many happy, healthy married couples looking to adopt. Look at how many there are going overseas to adopt.
They essentially reversed/ignored an earlier ruling to legalize same sex sodomy.
The courts are not infallible. The secular left treats their edicts as if they are the Pope or even God.
They set precedent but they change their opinions at times.
"I think it's a sad day for children who would NOT get otherwise adopted by heterosexual families."
If I were a six-year old boy I think I'd rather be relatively safe in foster care as opposed to having my butt reamed by some filthy pervert.
I have yet to meet a queer who thinks that sex with underage males is wrong and have met several who think sex with six to thirteen year old males is actually GOOD for them.
And it is a pain in the ass to adopt a child in this country. Mostly because once the child is adopted the federal and state money for the social services for that child stop flowing. So we wend up with a system that discourages adoption in order to perpetuate a foster care system. In California, for instance, I personally know of several foster families who are "unfit" in some way or another to adopt a child.
But they keep getting foster kids sent to them because they're such great people with kids.
Go figure.
I agree with your point about foster care.
Here is the fun part:
even the Florida Bar has decided to stay out of this mess.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1311256/posts
Yesterday around the courthouse, there is buzz that other states are not going to pass restrictions on homosexuals adopting children. This will remove homosexuals from the competition of adopting infants. There is no reason for any homosexual to adopt a baby.
Homosexuals have no significant interest in problem children. Homosexuals want to compete for the babies along with the normal mothers and fathers.
actuall no.
Keep in mind ONE OF THE JUDGES SITTING AT THE 11TH DCA WAS ACTUALLY FROM THE 9TH CIRCUS BY SPECIAL APPOINTMENT. This case is VERY persuasive as it stands now.
While the USSC rejects most cert cases, the fact that cert was denied permits the 11th opinion to be the dominant opinion of the land ESPECALLY with a 9th circuit judge participating.
"along with the NORMAL mothers and fathers"
(emphasis added)
My point exactly.
This ruling is only a win for the corruption in government.
I would just love to see the evidence in that hearing. It would have choice vs "born as" on trial in court.
Would homo-advocate groups jump in to establish a one homo-act rule akin to the one drop of blood rule for "blackness"?
You are missing that fact that 'Florida Child Welfare Services' has over the last decade literally lost hundreds of children. Don't you remember those articles on FR and Fox News a year or so ago?
and? That is a different issue outside of whether homosexuals should adopt children.
Much of the institutional incompetence of the DCF and before named HRS was a result of decadges of career social and case workers who were left with no oversight.
This case is good in that it defers to the legislature. With FL all republican state gov, there is zero chance of this being taken up.
One battle at a time in this part of the culure war please.
Two different issues administered by the same corrupt bureaucrats and regulators.
This "solution" is going to cause a lot of problems down the road.
For starters, you have the problem of families created by out of state adoptions; my guess is that this is one case where the SC would hold that "full faith and credit" applies and such adoptions would stand, especially as FL is unique in prohibiting such adoptions.
Then, as someone notes above, you have the problem of adoptive parents who announce a change of "sexual orientation".
And the problem of deciding who is "homosexual" for the purpose of such distinctions; for example do you use a "one drop" criteria were any previous sort of homosexual encounter disqualifies? (If so, you are disqualifying large number of individuals who identify themselves as "straight")
Also, there is pratical problem of enforcing the law against actual violators, it's going to get really messy if FL starts breaking up such families, especially in cases where minor children appear "well-adjusted" and want to remaining with their adoptive parents (in the case before the SC, the homosexual adoptive parent had been a "parent of the year").
Finally, there is likely the longer-term problem of defending distinction on the basis of sexual behavior widely practiced by heterosexual parents.
So I don’t think we have heard the last of these issues.
This decision affects only Florida, because only Florida bans gay adoptions. The other 49 states all permit gays to adopt.
Chalk up a big win in the pro-family column!
Agreed. And since the state may now legally require that adoption be granted to married couples only, they should be able to more strictly control this type of charade.
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.