Florida Ban on Gay Adoptions Ruled Unconstitutional

[nageov3t]

Circuit Court rules against Florida's ban on gay adoptions

A foster father can adopt his teenage ward, a judge has ruled, because Florida's prohibition against gay adoption is contrary to the state and U.S. constitutions.

A Monroe Circuit Court judge has ruled Florida's 31-year-old gay adoption ban ''unconstitutional'' in an order that allows an openly gay Key West foster parent to adopt a teenage boy he has raised since 2001.

Declaring the adoption to be in the boy's ''best interest,'' Circuit Judge David J. Audlin Jr. said the Florida law forbidding gay people from adopting children is contrary to the state Constitution because it singles out a group for punishment.

Florida is one of only two states -- the other is Mississippi -- that forbids gay people from adopting.

Circuit judges in Florida have found the statute unconstitutional twice before, both in 1991, but both challenges stalled. A Miami case expected to be heard next month may provide an additional challenge to the law.

At the heart of the Monroe case is a 13-year-old boy with learning disabilities and special needs who has lived in his Key West foster father's two-story home since the Department of Children & Families placed him there in 2001. The boy is identified as John Doe. The father, 52, is not identified.

Audlin appointed the foster father as guardian for the boy in 2006. At a recent hearing, the boy testified he wanted the man to be his ''forever father'' -- like all the other kids had -- ''because I love him,'' the order says.

A home study by a social worker ''highly'' recommended the guardian and his partner be allowed to adopt the boy, saying the two men provided a ''loving and nurturing home,'' provided ''fair and consistent'' discipline and are financially secure, the order says.

Miami attorney Alan Mishael, who represents John Doe's guardian, declined to discuss the ruling, since Audlin has not yet published it formally. He said the ruling is less about public policy than the welfare of a former foster child who wants a father of his own.

''This is a case about a young man who already had a permanent guardian but wanted to have a father,'' Mishael said. ``That's what the case is about. That's all it's about.''

In the ruling, the judge noted that the statute was passed by lawmakers in 1977 amid a politically charged campaign to, as one lawmaker at the time put it, send gay people ''back into the closet.'' Audin said the law violates the Constitution's separation of powers by preventing family court and child welfare judges from deciding case-by-case what is best for a child.

''Contrary to every child welfare principle,'' Audlin wrote, ''the gay adoption ban operates as a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that . . . it is never in the best interest of any adoptee to be adopted by a homosexual,'' Audlin wrote.

In 1991, a Key West judge tossed out the anti-gay adoption statute as a violation of privacy and equal protection, but the ruling never was published or appealed.

That same year, a Sarasota Circuit judge declared the law unconstitutional, citing the earlier case. But two years later, an appeals court in Lakeland reversed the decision, in a case involving a man named James W. Cox who had been told he could not adopt a foster child. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Lakeland court in 1995.

State law does not preclude gay people from fostering abused and neglected children. John Doe's guardian has cared for 32 children who were in DCF custody, the order says.

DCF Secretary George Sheldon said his agency took no position on the Key West adoption because the boy already had been placed in a permanent guardianship with his foster father, essentially stripping DCF of authority over family decisions. ''We were not a party, and we are still not a party,'' he said.

http://www.miamiherald.com/new...rida/story/679719.html via Text

pretty awesome news, hopefully the ruling gets upheld :thumbsup:

I've never understood the argument that it's better for a child to have no parents than gay parents.

 

[ElFenix]

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Lakeland court in 1995.

i wonder why this trial court decided to go against precedent?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Lakeland court in 1995.

i wonder why this trial court decided to go against precedent?

Because sometimes precedent is fucking wrong? If Courts never went against precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land. Or are you saying that only the Supreme Court should be able to change precedent? Lord knows they have plenty of time to deal with every case that challenges the Constitutionality of obviously stupid laws...

 

[PokerGuy]

It will get overturned, the FL supremes have already ruled on this before.

 

[jpeyton]

Another dagger in the heart of social conservative hockey moms across the country.

 

[deftron]

Gay kids deserve to be adopted just like straight ones

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
It will get overturned, the FL supremes have already ruled on this before.

That was 13 years ago. I'd say it's ripe for another go. The world has changed a little bit with regard to gay rights since then.

 

[Xavier434]

:thumbsup:

 

[brandonb]

Adoption is a priveledge, not a right. I just can't see how it punishes anybody but not allowing someone to adopt or a group to adopt.

I'm guessing 44 year old bald guys who obviously haven't been laid in their entire lives are probably not allowed to adopt 12 year old girls for obvious reasons.

Is that punishment to the 44 year old guy? When did he have a right to adopt a 12 year old girl?

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Adoption is a priveledge, not a right. I just can't see how it punishes anybody but not allowing someone to adopt or a group to adopt.

I'm guessing 44 year old bald guys who obviously haven't been laid in their entire lives are probably not allowed to adopt 12 year old girls for obvious reasons.

Is that punishment to the 44 year old guy? When did he have a right to adopt a 12 year old girl?

Text of section 1 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

So brandonb, thanks for agreeing with us that the Constitution does indeed guarantee that you cannot legally disallow a gay person from adoption because, as you put it yourself, it's a privelege and the 14th amendment guarantees equal privelege to US citizens. I'm glad to see you're on our side.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Adoption is a priveledge, not a right. I just can't see how it punishes anybody but not allowing someone to adopt or a group to adopt.

I'm guessing 44 year old bald guys who obviously haven't been laid in their entire lives are probably not allowed to adopt 12 year old girls for obvious reasons.

Is that punishment to the 44 year old guy? When did he have a right to adopt a 12 year old girl?

They don't give kids away like puppies. There are extensive interviews and paperwork before a child can be adopted. In this case the child was in foster care of the man and expressed his own desire to remain there. The judge is ruling not on the rights of gays but on the rights and best interests of children.

The 44 year old bald guy doesn't get a 12 year old girl if Childrens Services and a judge ruling on the case determine it is not in the best interests of the child. It has nothing to do with the adult's rights. And guess what, if they determine that it is in the best interests of the child, then he does get the girl.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jonks

They don't give kids away like puppies. There are extensive interviews and paperwork before a child can be adopted. In this case the child was in foster care of the man and expressed his own desire to remain there. The judge is ruling not on the rights of gays but on the rights and best interests of children.

The 44 year old bald guy doesn't get a 12 year old girl if Childrens Services and a judge ruling on the case determine it is not in the best interests of the child. It has nothing to do with the adult's rights. And guess what, if they determine that it is in the best interests of the child, then he does get the girl.

What the hell is your problem with bald guys?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Adoption is a priveledge, not a right. I just can't see how it punishes anybody but not allowing someone to adopt or a group to adopt.

I'm guessing 44 year old bald guys who obviously haven't been laid in their entire lives are probably not allowed to adopt 12 year old girls for obvious reasons.

Is that punishment to the 44 year old guy? When did he have a right to adopt a 12 year old girl?

I don't think you can see past your bias. The ban denies a group of people the privilege for no sound reason, other than people like you. It doesn't give gays the right to adopt, but it does afford them the privilege that they did not have before.
Child Services won't be driving down the street tossing an orphaned baby in every gay couple's yard, they'll have to go through the same process as anybody else.

''Contrary to every child welfare principle,'' Audlin wrote, ''the gay adoption ban operates as a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that . . . it is never in the best interest of any adoptee to be adopted by a homosexual,'' Audlin wrote.

GG with the inevitable gay=pedophile jab, though.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: ElFenix

The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the Lakeland court in 1995.

i wonder why this trial court decided to go against precedent?

Because sometimes precedent is fucking wrong? If Courts never went against precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land. Or are you saying that only the Supreme Court should be able to change precedent? Lord knows they have plenty of time to deal with every case that challenges the Constitutionality of obviously stupid laws...

no, i'm asking what the legal reasoning is. jesus christ people here are so wound up.

 

[JS80]

wtf how is something like this in the law books to begin with? anyone have text to exact law?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Adoption is a priveledge, not a right. I just can't see how it punishes anybody but not allowing someone to adopt or a group to adopt.

I'm guessing 44 year old bald guys who obviously haven't been laid in their entire lives are probably not allowed to adopt 12 year old girls for obvious reasons.

Is that punishment to the 44 year old guy? When did he have a right to adopt a 12 year old girl?

That's an awful analogy. From the article:

A home study by a social worker ''highly'' recommended the guardian and his partner be allowed to adopt the boy, saying the two men provided a ''loving and nurturing home,'' provided ''fair and consistent'' discipline and are financially secure, the order says.

This is clearly a solid home. There is absolutely no legitimate reason (assuming the quote above is accurate) for the guardian not to be allowed to adopt the boy.

Congratulations to the guardian on winning the case and I hope and pray that the Florida Supreme court shows some intelligence and allows the adoption to take place.

ZV

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I've never understood the argument that it's better for a child to have no parents than gay parents.

Because their gayness will rub off, duh!!

On bright side though, if they can resist the temptation to turn gay they will grow up to be really good dressers. (if raised by gay men)

If they are raised by a couple of gay women though they may be doomed to a life of spiked hair cuts...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: jonks

They don't give kids away like puppies. There are extensive interviews and paperwork before a child can be adopted. In this case the child was in foster care of the man and expressed his own desire to remain there. The judge is ruling not on the rights of gays but on the rights and best interests of children.

The 44 year old bald guy doesn't get a 12 year old girl if Childrens Services and a judge ruling on the case determine it is not in the best interests of the child. It has nothing to do with the adult's rights. And guess what, if they determine that it is in the best interests of the child, then he does get the girl.

What the hell is your problem with bald guys?

Did Craig just make a joke? I must be missing something here.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481
I've never understood the argument that it's better for a child to have no parents than gay parents.

Because their gayness will rub off, duh!!

On bright side though, if they can resist the temptation to turn gay they will grow up to be really good dressers. (if raised by gay men)

If they are raised by a couple of gay women though they may be doomed to a life of spiked hair cuts...

Wow is that... that's a socially liberal idea... and you're not vehemently against it?

 

[ProfJohn]

I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative... sorta.

I think abortion is an abomination, but I don't want government to outlaw it completely.
And I have no problem with gay rights, I just oppose the idea of gay 'marriage' because marriage is a religious idea first.

My neighbors across the hall were gay couple, good for them. Who cares what anyone else thinks.
Also, gay people tend to be some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

FINALLY!!! And this is a BIG one. There is NO evidence at all that guy men are attracted to underage boys. People who molest boys tend to be people who suffered through some sort of "issue" during their adolescence. There molestation is due to them trying to recapture what was taken from them. This also explains why so many Priests turns into molesters, never had a normal adult sexual relationship, and why Michael Jackson is most likely a molester. He never had a chance to be a teenage boy, instead he was pushed right into adulthood. Also, nearly all same sex molesters are heterosexual.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
At the heart of the Monroe case is a 13-year-old boy with learning disabilities and special needs who has lived in his Key West foster father's two-story home since the Department of Children & Families placed him there in 2001. The boy is identified as John Doe. The father, 52, is not identified.

Audlin appointed the foster father as guardian for the boy in 2006. At a recent hearing, the boy testified he wanted the man to be his ''forever father'' -- like all the other kids had -- ''because I love him,'' the order says.

A home study by a social worker ''highly'' recommended the guardian and his partner be allowed to adopt the boy, saying the two men provided a ''loving and nurturing home,'' provided ''fair and consistent'' discipline and are financially secure, the order says.

Miami attorney Alan Mishael, who represents John Doe's guardian, declined to discuss the ruling, since Audlin has not yet published it formally. He said the ruling is less about public policy than the welfare of a former foster child who wants a father of his own.

''This is a case about a young man who already had a permanent guardian but wanted to have a father,'' Mishael said. ``That's what the case is about. That's all it's about.''

We should be holding these two guys up as an example of everything that is right with this country.

 

[ultra laser]

Why do you guys think gays should have children? Healthy children have a mother and a father, not two fathers or two mothers. Ultimately, this ruling singles out orphan children for undue punishment.

Also, Gay foster parents more likely to molest: http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_02_11.html

This judge must really hate children.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
Why do you guys think gays should have children? Healthy children have a mother and a father, not two fathers or two mothers. Ultimately, this ruling singles out orphan children for undue punishment.

Say what??

Not allowing this actually punishes kids who have NO parents at all.

You understand that all the healthy wonderful babies are adopted at birth by rich people.
That leave a bunch of older children and special needs children homeless so to speak.

If we can find people who are perfectly suited to take care of them and have the means then we should allow them. To do other wise is to punish the children because we as adults are a bunch of bigoted idiots.

 

[QED]

When asked to comment about this news, John Kerry said "I'm happy about this. I'm especially happy for Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, knowing that if she ever decided to move to Florida, and ever decided to adopt a child, that she would be able to do so."

 

[ProfJohn]

ultra, would you care to provide a source better than the "FAMILY RESEARCH REPORT"??

I just found a site call "Gay people are cool" that claims gays make better parents.... .