Skip to comments.
Same-sex adoption ban upheld (11th Circut Speaks AGAINST courts as "Superlegislatures!!)
World Net Daily ^
| JANUARY 29, 2004
| WorldNetDaily
Posted on 01/29/2004 7:24:32 AM PST by 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."
TOPICS: Breaking News; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: adoption; homosexual; homosexualadoption; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; samesexadoption
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 next last
The other thing is that it is more of a lifestyle issue. Since one's lifestyle is the only thing that makes you "gay," one can fairly say that so long as you continue in a manner of living which is inconducive to sensible child-rearing, you ought not be granted the privilege to adopt a child. It's the same as if you had a history of severe epilepsy. Being epileptic is no crime but it DOES make it much more likely that you will be a poor parent (especially to a child who may have no reason to obey you).
41
posted on
01/29/2004 10:16:57 AM PST
by
GulliverSwift
(Saddam's WMD were sold/hidden while we were bogged down at the UN.)
To: gobucks; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; CAtholic Family Association; ...
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." The Catholic Church has staunchly maintained this position.
"At a moment of history in which the family is the object of numerous forces that seek to destroy it or in some way to deform it, and aware that the well-being of society and her own good are intimately tied to the good of the family [7], the Church perceives in a more urgent and compelling way her mission of proclaiming to all people the plan of God for marriage and the family, ensuring their full vitality and human and Christian development, and thus contributing to the renewal of society and of the people of God."
Familiaris Consortio Apostolic Exhortation On the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World
"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
42
posted on
01/29/2004 10:22:58 AM PST
by
NYer
("One person and God make an army." - St. Teresa of Avila)
To: cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback
PRO-LIFE PING!
43
posted on
01/29/2004 10:24:26 AM PST
by
NYer
("One person and God make an army." - St. Teresa of Avila)
To: 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; Balto_Boy; ...
ProLife Ping! If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
44
posted on
01/29/2004 10:31:19 AM PST
by
Mr. Silverback
(Pre-empt the third murder attempt-- Pray for Terry Schiavo!)
To: Dr. Eckleburg
All gay adoption is child abuse.
Bump!
To: GulliverSwift
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.
I don't see that ever being effective. The problem would be proving the other person knew before hand. Otherwise the risks of the behavior are well known. A suit against someone who didn't know he had aids and who hadn't lied about having previous activity would not be successful.
46
posted on
01/29/2004 12:08:58 PM PST
by
DannyTN
To: upchuck
As frustrating as the spending fiasco is, we can't forget this simple truth-- judges matter, and they matter more than all of the other crap.
Agree 100%.
It really is ALL ABOUT THE JUDGES!
Scream this from the highest rooftops!!!
47
posted on
01/29/2004 12:19:39 PM PST
by
b-cubed
To: gobucks
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." Refreshing.
48
posted on
01/29/2004 1:02:44 PM PST
by
Roscoe
To: gobucks
Speaking of SCOTUS's arrogance, they're ruling or about to rule on the minimum age that the death penalty can be applied to somebody by a given state. And this after refusing to hear Silveira vs. Lockyer, which actually concerns a federal matter (2nd Amendment). They truly are arrogant, indeed.
49
posted on
01/29/2004 1:21:29 PM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Death is certain; little chance of success; what are we waiting for???)
To: William McKinley
As frustrating as the spending fiasco is, we can't forget this simple truth-- judges matter, and they matter more than all of the other crap.The only reason the judges matter so much is that we take their rulings as gospel. As far as I know, our congress and state legislators take constitutional oaths, and they could ignore all the suprelegislative nonsense. A little rebellion against these arrogant judges would be nice every now and then...
50
posted on
01/29/2004 1:24:22 PM PST
by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Death is certain; little chance of success; what are we waiting for???)
To: GulliverSwift
And they deserve better than having 2 (or more) mentally disturbed people as parents. LOL! I think that is a very good description of them.
51
posted on
01/29/2004 1:27:32 PM PST
by
jerri
To: gobucks
I wonder how this applies to gay couples in Florida who already have adoptive children?
52
posted on
01/29/2004 1:28:02 PM PST
by
ellery
To: gobucks
adoption is a statutory creation. It does not exist at common law. It must be narrowly interprited.
BTW this is not the first time the ban was upheld. Florida's SC (gasp!) upheld it.
To: DannyTN
Adoption does not exist at common law. Since it is a statuory creation it has to be narrowly construed to only what the legislature says it is.
Adoption is not a right is any state.
It is not arbitrary, it is codifying what the legislature said and what the FL courts already said. repeatedly.
To: upchuck
To that end, we need more Freepers in law school.
To: djreece
"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. Marking
56
posted on
01/29/2004 1:49:16 PM PST
by
djreece
To: ellery
I wonder how this applies to gay couples in Florida who already have adoptive children?
don't have a clue ... but it does imply they're outlaw "parents" doesn't it?
57
posted on
01/29/2004 2:02:45 PM PST
by
gobucks
(http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
To: longtermmemmory
But by the time the b/c a freeper, it's usually too late!! Ever notice the demographics in this place? It's Baby Boomer Heaven!!
58
posted on
01/29/2004 2:04:10 PM PST
by
gobucks
(http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
To: longtermmemmory
BTW this is not the first time the ban was upheld. Florida's SC (gasp!) upheld it.
That is a shock indeed and I didn't know that, thanks. It must have been a narrow ruling nonetheless. (2000 convinced me the FSC has got a bunch of political hacks on the bench, period).
59
posted on
01/29/2004 2:06:22 PM PST
by
gobucks
(http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/laocoon)
To: ellery
They were not adopted in FL. That is where full faith and credit steps in. However, given this ruling it may arguable make it so FL does not have to recognize them.
How about a law that states a child has only one mother and one father.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-115 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson