Same-sex adoption ban upheld (11th Circut Speaks AGAINST courts as "Superlegislatures!!)

World Net Daily ^ | JANUARY 29, 2004 | WorldNetDaily

[gobucks]

A federal appeals court yesterday upheld Florida's ban on same-sex adoptions, ruling the landmark Texas sodomy case does not establish a right for homosexuals to parent displaced children.

The Florida legislature properly judged it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who engage in voluntary homosexual activity, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said.

The court said it "found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment. Thus, any argument that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law."

The opinon also made a strong statement against judicial activism.

"The legislature is the proper forum for this debate, and we do not sit as a superlegislature to award by judicial decree what was not achievable by political consensus," it said.

The court noted that under Florida law, adoption is a privilege and not a right and the state can make classifications with respect to adoption that might be constitutionally suspect in other areas.

"In this age of judicial activism, it is refreshing to see a court assume its proper role and allow the people to set family policy," said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel of Orlando, Fla.-based Liberty Counsel.

"Common sense and human history underscore the fact that children need a mother and a father," he added.

Liberty Counsel, a civil liberties legal defense and education organization in Orlando, Fla., joined with the Marriage Law Project to file a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Florida lawmakers.

"Hopefully this decision will form a basis for other states to follow Florida's example of preserving family relationships that include a mom and a dad," Staver said.

The federal court's decision curbed the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas last year that found criminal homosexual sodomy statutes unconstitutional.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the Lawrence decision did not create a new fundamental right to private sexual intimacy and did not control the adoption case because the ban on adoption was not a criminal prohibition, but was a statutory privilege.

The opinion relied upon Liberty Counsel's amicus brief in holding that the Florida Legislature had "a legitimate interest in encouraging a stable and nurturing environment for the education and socialization of its adopted children … by seeking to place the children in homes that have both a mother and father."

The opinion also noted that even though some have argued alternative child-rearing arrangements are satisfactory, the court stated no alternative arrangement "has proven as enduring as the marital family structure, nor has the accumulated wisdom of several millennia of human experience discovered a superior model."

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - another article about the good news from FL. The judges actually speak out against judicial activism. Now if only a couple of the SCOTUS justices would retire and get replaced with conservatives or at least not criminally insane liberal/leftists.

If anyone wants on or off this ping list, pingify me!

[DannyTN]

I'm glad for the decision.

But I don't see how a legislature cannot discriminate against gays by outlawing deviant sexual practices but can discriminate against gays in adoption rights.

Either the state has the right to say what is allowed in their state or they don't. This is an arbitary line being drawn and if it's allowed to shift once it most certainly will shift again.

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Wheee The People]

"The legislature is the proper forum for this debate, and we do not sit as a superlegislature to award by judicial decree what was not achievable by political consensus,"

WORD

[Salvation]

You might enjoy this article:

2004: Supreme Issue

[The Old Hoosier]

Bump for later.

[MissNomer]

I also am glad for the decision, as well as for that remarkable quote denouncing judicial activism. Regarding your point about discriminating against gays in one area and not another, there is one small, rather easily overlooked sentence in that original article (well, okay, *I* overlooked it the first time) that explains the distinction:

"The court noted that under Florida law, adoption is a privilege and not a right and the state can make classifications with respect to adoption that might be constitutionally suspect in other areas."

While adoption is a privilege not covered by constitutional protections, sexual activity (consensual, of course) is considered a constitutionally protected right. I find this a very helpful distinction, and I hope other courts uphold it as well. (See tagline.)

[tuesday afternoon]

Bump.

[gobucks]

LOL!!! Good one!

[gobucks]

See #2. There's lots of stuff in this article missing from the the "same" story you refer too.

[gobucks]

Agreed - and the trojan horse of homo marriage has yet to be stopped effectively. I'm guessing it really will end up as a constitutional fight ... and one that will be lost. The supermajority doesn't yet see the threat, and majority votes won't be enough.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

This ruling is obviously mindless rantings of the heterosexist nazi krischun right. We look forward to replacing all these judges with more socially aware ones after the revolution. /sarcasm

[gobucks]

LOL ... thanks to your sarcasm tag...

Oh, but how true it would be for a committed DUer this comment would be...

[GulliverSwift]

Michael Jackson is deeply saddened.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The first bit of good news regarding this atrocity.

All gay adoption is child abuse.

[gobucks]

All gay adoption is child abuse.

Doc ... truer words were NEVER written.

[GulliverSwift]

In the same way that it can against those with low incomes and alcohol abuse problems, none of which is illegal. Kids deserve better than that. And they deserve better than having 2 (or more) mentally disturbed people as parents.

[DannyTN]

"While adoption is a privilege not covered by constitutional protections, sexual activity (consensual, of course) is considered a constitutionally protected right."

That is a very fine line, because if their sexual activity is constitutionally protected, then on what grounds did the state decide not to allow them the privilege of adopting?

Secondly that distinction does not separate sodomy from prostitution or bestiality. So even if we accepted that as a distinction the judicial/legislative line is still unmoored.

[DannyTN]

I agree the kids deserve better than that.

I just question why the state can discriminate against homosexuals but can't outlaw the homosexual behavior.

[GulliverSwift]

I just question why the state can discriminate against homosexuals but can't outlaw the homosexual behavior.

I agree to some extent. I think that we may get an effective criminalization of it in the future once they figure that they can sue someone for giving them AIDS.