Posted on 10/12/2007 7:32:16 AM PDT by SmithL
Attorney General Bob Cooper wrote that same-sex couples are eligible to adopt children so long as the adoption is found to be in the best interest of the child.
The opinion had been requested by Wilson County Circuit Judge Clara Byrd, who did not return a call seeking comment about why she had asked for the opinion.
The Tennessee Constitution does not mention adoption, and Cooper found that there were no current laws that specifically bar gay couples from adopting.
Cooper said under current state law, adoptions may be granted to any prospective parent who is at least 18 years old. No one is required to be married.
But before making a final adoption order, a judge “must find that petitioners are fit persons to have the care and custody of the child.”
The state Court of Appeals has found that “the lifestyle of the proposed adoptive parent is a factor the trial court should consider in determining whether a proposed adoption is in the best interest of a child,” Cooper said.
“Accordingly, assuming the adoption is found to be in the best interest of the child who is subject of the adoption, there is no prohibition in Tennessee statutes against adoption by a same-sex couple.”
Current guidelines followed by the state’s Department of Children’s Services for placing children in state custody with foster or adoptive parents do not take into account sexual orientation.
“The true test of being an adoptive parent is whether you have the emotional strength or the parenting ability to care for our kids,” said Rob Johnson, spokesman for DCS.
Former state Rep. Chris Clem, R-Lookout Mountain, sponsored a bill in 2005 seeking a ban on gay adoptions. It later was watered down to give preference to heterosexual, married couples over singles, but it was voted down in committee.
Clem sits on the board of the Family Action Council of Tennessee, a political activist group that “is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the family as the union of one man and one woman and their children.” Clem said he proposed the bill because he wanted to give judges more guidance when placing children.
“I don’t think the AG’s opinion clears it up at all,” said Clem, an attorney working in Chattanooga. “I think it would be better for the law to give a little more direction than that.”
Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project, which advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, said there may be another push in the General Assembly to get adoption laws changed to prohibit gay couples.
Most states do not have laws regarding adoption by gays or lesbians, but some states have tried to pass bans or set limits on adoption, said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
What constitution?
Inmates are running the Asylum
And how's that?
Exactly, The State Constitution doesn’t allow it either. This is a legislative matter that has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Poor kids, they have no say.
“The state constitution in Tennessee does not prohibit gay couples from adopting children, the state attorney general said in an opinion released Thursday”
I guess now lawyers, not judges are making Constitutional decisions. We have a lot of those.
Prohibiting homosexuals from adopting children HAS been found to be constitutionally permissible. The 11 Federal DCA did the last opinion on a case out of FL. (the homosexuals made repeated runs on that FL law) The USSC refused cert.
It seems the Tennessee legislature has some writing to do.
I suspect this woman judge has a homosexual adoption case in front of her and can’t comment because it is a minor.
The REAL issue is whether it is a violation of the law to give a child to two fathers/mothers. All adotions should be to one mother and one father.
The two homosexuals, related by sexual recreation, should NOT be adopting a child.
If anything only ONE should be allowed to be the adoptive mother/father.
“The lifestyle of the proposed adoptive parent is a factor the trial court should consider in determining whether a proposed adoption is in the best interest of a child.”But we wouldn't even think of saying anything bad about the gay lifestyle, would we? So go ahead and look forward to even more two-year-olds in leather harnesses attending gay sex orgies…
adotption is a legistlative creation and is subject to a strict scrutiny interpritation.
Since it is a legislative creation, if the statute does not allow it then the act is not permitted.
(contrast with a common law being codified into statute)
Is this attorney general a democrat?
I see that the AG is a creative writer....
“Accordingly, assuming the adoption is found to be in the best interest of the child who is subject of the adoption, there is no prohibition in Tennessee statutes against adoption by a same-sex couple.”
He really played dressup to “the best interest of the child”, IMO.
"Prior to his appointment as Attorney General and Reporter, General Cooper served as Legal Counsel to Governor Phil Bredesen from 2003 to 2006.
In addition to providing legal advice to the Governor, he coordinated the legal affairs of the executive branch for the Governor, assisted in the development and implementation of legislation, advised on judicial appointments, and reviewed requests for executive clemency and extradition."
Ah yes, so here we have the catch. If we amend Constitutions, we are cluttering, adding bias, imposing views, etc. If we don’t, they win by default.
It's worse than that.
While my son was in a neo-natal intensive care unit (NICU), there was another child in with him who had significant issues due to her mother's health - mommy was an alcoholic who had the baby on her way to jail for intoxication - and was clearly under stress from other complications (meconium aspiration for you medically minded reading this) requiring almost constant nursing care.
So of course due to mommy's er, Problems, the baby was put up for adoption.
And guess who the State of California granted adoption rights to.
Ms. and Ms. Bull Dyke and her Bottom.
It's hard to believe stereotypes exist, but they have real roots. The Dyke was a bulky, close cropped Neanderthal of a female who shambled around in the NICU with her fists clenched, muttering to herself, her eyes half closed all the time. The Bottom looked like an office administrator: polyester pants, no emotion.
A creepy pair of whack job Lesbians, nothing more.
And a little girl who's life was already a mess was going to be handed over to them by "the State". As if they could make it better.
Even the nurses had a hard time with that one, and that gang of hard working ladies have seen everything.
The kids have no say. Damn right. That girl will grow up to know that she was a pawn of a bunch of twisted, sick garbage who used her for social experimentation...and I'm talking about the judge here.
She was eventually taken back by Mommy, after about a month long court battle. Mommy showed up with clean clothing and makeup that didn't look like she fell out of a bar. Even held her little girl, who stopped crying for a few minutes. Babies really do seem to know who their parents are (yeah, I learned that too with mine), regardless of separation.
Eventually she was moved to less intensive surroundings.
Hopefully Mommy kept her and cleaned up, saving her little girl from the Bondage Babes.
But what kind of country hands their children over to such freaks?
Probably the same country that countenances having similar freaks vacuum children out of Mommy just a few months prior in their pregnancy.
This is the end result of thousands of years of "development" leading to Modern Civilization.
Aren't we ever so Advanced?
Ok, the rules are (1) no boys for the male queers, and (2) no girls for the lezzbos.
Watch how quickly they lose interest.
I don’t see any problem with this AG’s answer. Either the TN Constitution does prohibit such, or it doesn’t. If it does, quote the applicable portion. If it doesn’t, then it’s up to the state legislature to address the issue. The AG can only work with the laws he has.
Far be it from me to defend gay couples ... but I am not adamantly against gay couples being eligible adoption.
I believe homosexuality is wrong. But, to the extent that a gay couple can be verified as stable and otherwise qualified, I see no reason that a child should be left in an orphanage when he would certainly be better off with a family.
In a perfect world, all children would be adopted into stable, loving, married, Christian, heterosexual families ... that would certainly be the best for the child, and those families should be given preference.
But, it is preferable for a child to have a stable gay couple family than no family at all.
My aversion to homosexuality notwithstanding ... when taking the interests of the child as the only priority, I cannot be entirely against gay adoptions.
H
>> No such thing.
That’s an awfully broad statement. Are you sure? I’m certainly not.
The thing is ... there are a LOT of unstable heterosexual couples. A lot of abuse and molestation come from heterosexual homes. There are also a LOT of heterosexual couples that are simply unfit to adopt children. Homosexual couples do not have a monopoly on creepiness or instability.
You must have a heavy screening process for both traditional and homo couples to adopt - and possibly an even heavier screening for homosexual couples. However, given that a homosexual couple can pass the same (or heavier) screening that a heterosexual couple can ... I don’t think their homosexuality alone is enough to deny a family to an orphaned child.
A stable heterosexual home is certainly ideal, and stable heterosexual families should be given preference and priority. But, if no such couple is available ... a stable homosexual home is absolutely better than no home at all.
I’m simply not willing to let a child grow up without a family because I feel the parents that want him or her are morally lacking. No family is perfect ... some imperfections can be more tolerable than others, and some moral imperfections are still preferable to condemning a child to a life with no family.
H
The New York Court of Appeals did a fair job of defining
such when they refused to agree with the homosexuals who
wanted New York State Law changed by Judicial Fiat. IMO
Putting a child in custody of homosexual can NEVER be
called in the best interest of a child. NO attorney General or Court is qualified to judge best interest- unless they have prior training by ACPEDS.(as Pediatric
Doctor.)
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.