FL judge overturns gay adoption ban

[jonks]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_re_us/gay_adoptions

MIAMI ? A judge on Tuesday ruled that a strict Florida law that blocks gay people from adopting children is unconstitutional, declaring there was no legal or scientific reason for sexual orientation alone to prohibit anyone from adopting.
**************


That pretty much sums it up. We are approaching something of a nexus in US law that will have to determine if gay people are equal citizens or not. Marriage, adoption, visitation rights, etc, can all be put to rest by a constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. I doubt we'll see such a thing very soon, I don't think the federal legislature has the balls to do it. But even if they did, it wouldn't end things. We had the civil war amendments on the books for almost 100 years before Brown v Bd Ed. I think SCOTUS will have to make the call again, and I think it's coming fairly soon (years, not decades).

She noted that gay people are allowed to be foster parents in Florida. "There is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting," she wrote in a 53-page ruling.

Which leads back to what was missing from every prop 8 thread, though repeatedly asked for. There is not one logical, rational reason to prohibit gay marriage or gay adoption. Only tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance and bigotry. And these are not the basis for law in this country.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: jonks
Only tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance and bigotry. And these are not the basis for law in this country.

Actually, the English common law that 49 states are based on and the Roman civil law that Louisiana uses are rife with tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance, and bigotry. So, those two sentences are factually incorrect.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: jonks
Only tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance and bigotry. And these are not the basis for law in this country.

Actually, the English common law that 49 states are based on and the Roman civil law that Louisiana uses are rife with tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance, and bigotry. So, those two sentences are factually incorrect.

You get the point. I think a better wording would have been that laws should not be based on those things.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: jonks
Only tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance and bigotry. And these are not the basis for law in this country.

Actually, the English common law that 49 states are based on and the Roman civil law that Louisiana uses are rife with tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance, and bigotry. So, those two sentences are factually incorrect.

No snarkiness intended, but have you any examples of law still on the books that falls under that premise?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: jonks
Only tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance and bigotry. And these are not the basis for law in this country.

Actually, the English common law that 49 states are based on and the Roman civil law that Louisiana uses are rife with tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance, and bigotry. So, those two sentences are factually incorrect.

No snarkiness intended, but have you any examples of law still on the books that falls under that premise?

Not part of common law but Florida's constitution.

Text

Obviously, it's not followed these days and it'll probably be amended in the next election since there were some incorrect assumptions about the amendment this last election. Really, it's more comical than anything as a window back into time.

 

[Infohawk]

Is there political will for an amendment to the US Constitution allowing discrimination against gays?

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: jonks
Only tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance and bigotry. And these are not the basis for law in this country.

Actually, the English common law that 49 states are based on and the Roman civil law that Louisiana uses are rife with tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance, and bigotry. So, those two sentences are factually incorrect.

No snarkiness intended, but have you any examples of law still on the books that falls under that premise?

Not part of common law but Florida's constitution.

Text

Obviously, it's not followed these days and it'll probably be amended in the next election since there were some incorrect assumptions about the amendment this last election. Really, it's more comical than anything as a window back into time.

As a Florida voter I can tell you first hand, the way they describe the amendments on the ballot is despicable. I consider myself to be fairly well educated (4 year undergrad, 3 year law school), and even I had a hell of a time deciphering what the heck each amendment actually was trying to accomplish and whether my vote even supported my position on the issue.

 

[ProfJohn]

Thought we had a thread on this a while back.

It is a good idea. Let anyone qualified adopt regardless of sexual orientation. Any thing we can do to get kids out of foster care is a good idea.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: aphex

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: jonks
Only tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance and bigotry. And these are not the basis for law in this country.

Actually, the English common law that 49 states are based on and the Roman civil law that Louisiana uses are rife with tradition, religion, superstition, ignorance, and bigotry. So, those two sentences are factually incorrect.

No snarkiness intended, but have you any examples of law still on the books that falls under that premise?

Not part of common law but Florida's constitution.

Text

Obviously, it's not followed these days and it'll probably be amended in the next election since there were some incorrect assumptions about the amendment this last election. Really, it's more comical than anything as a window back into time.

As a Florida voter I can tell you first hand, the way they describe the amendments on the ballot is despicable. I consider myself to be fairly well educated (4 year undergrad, 3 year law school), and even I had a hell of a time deciphering what the heck each amendment actually was trying to accomplish and whether my vote even supported my position on the issue.

That's what I've heard about the amendments. It's more comical than anything else because of the historical nature of what the amendment was supposed to address.