Florida Gay Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Florida Gay Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

CURT ANDERSON | 11/25/08 07:39 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It

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.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and their prospective gay parents, rejecting the state's arguments that there is "a supposed dark cloud hovering over homes of homosexuals and their children."

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.

Florida is the only state with an outright ban on gay adoption. Arkansas voters last month approved a measure similar to a law in Utah that bans any unmarried straight or gay couples from adopting or fostering children. Mississippi bans gay couples, but not single gays, from adopting.

The ruling means that Martin Gill, 47, and his male partner can adopt two brothers, ages 4 and 8, whom he has cared for as foster children since December 2004.

"I've never seen myself as less than anybody else," Gill said. "We're very grateful. Today, I've cried the first tears of joy in my life."

He said the two boys have been practicing writing their new last names, and the older one said: "That's what's going to make us a family."

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, who represent Gill, said the case was the first in the nation in which numerous experts in child psychology, social work and other fields testified that there is no science to justify a gay adoption ban.

Story continues below

The state planned a swift appeal, likely setting up a battle that could reach the Florida Supreme Court. A judge in gay-friendly Key West also found the law unconstitutional in September, but that ruling has not been appealed and has limited legal reach.

The state presented experts who claimed there was a higher incidence of drug and alcohol abuse among gay couples, that they were more unstable than heterosexual unions and that the children of gay couples suffer a societal stigma.

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association all support permitting same-sex couples to adopt.

Lederman rejected all the state's arguments soundly.

"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent," the judge wrote. "A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs."

Florida Assistant Attorney General Valerie Martin said an appeal would be filed on behalf of the state Department of Children & Families. She declined additional comment.

Neil Skene, special counsel for DCF, said the judge did an "excellent job" on the case, but the department still must enforce state law. He noted that DCF placed the foster children with Gill.

"We think this is a wonderful foster parent," Skene said.

Reaction came quickly from advocates of gay, lesbian and transgender parents who have long considered Florida's law the most draconian in the nation. Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Boston-based Family Equality Council, said the decision is a "long-overdue recognition of the equal ability of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to raise happy, healthy families."

"The best interests of children should be decided by parents, families, professionals and judges, not opportunistic politicians and interest groups," Chrisler said.

John Stemberger, chairman of a successful drive earlier this month to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Florida, called the ruling "classic judicial activism" and predicted it would be reversed on appeal.

"Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."

___

Associated Press Writer Bill Kaczor in Tallahassee contributed to this report.

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 orienta...
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 orienta...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
187
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 (4 pages total)
photo

For the record I am a Hetero Male and I am elated that a judge struck this ruling down. I am very happy about it. You have alot of children in the foster care, institutions, and wards of the State custody. Also at the same time you have celebrities that go to other countries to adopt kids. (Not that there is anything wrong with that). We have alot of kids here that need to be adopted. My hunch is that they for the most part do not care if their would be parents are straight or gay. Its about dang time that somone is thinking of the constituion and rule of law.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 11/25/2008
- brynn6 I'm a Fan of brynn6 12 fans permalink

Most are going overseas to adopt "babies" not children. Children out of infancy don't have many lining up to adopt them. This does not seem to be as much of a problem for the gay community.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 11/25/2008

"Miami Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled Tuesday there was "no rational basis" for prohibiting gays from adopting children."

THANK YOU! Finally!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:50 AM on 11/25/2008
- HPdevotee I'm a Fan of HPdevotee 34 fans permalink
photo

I'd be curious to read the full written decision by this judge.

I'm willing to bet that the same argument she uses to strike down this discriminatory state law could also be used at the Supreme Court level when the equal marriage case is brought before it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 11/25/2008
- M1 I'm a Fan of M1 44 fans permalink
photo

I am sure you are right except we have more protection in California. Homosexuals are a protected class in California and Marriage is considered a Fundamental right in California and Federally which means the State must prove its law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest of the highest order.

In Florida where the state merely had to show its law was rationally related to the legitimate interest in protecting children and not arbitrary. Gays had to show evidence that the law was not rationally related to protecting children by offerring sufficient evidence that Gay parents can care for children as well as heterosexual couples and such care is not harmful to the children.

This means for Gay Marriage in California the hurdle for the yes on prop 8 folks will be much harder to climb because the burden is on the State to prove its case and not on the no on prop 8 folks to disprove the State's assertions. Also, the level of scrutiny will be the highest being that the right at issue is fundamental and involves a minority group that has protected status in california....so, the State is going to have to prove with evidence that our Society will cease to exist because of the destabilizing effect upon heterosexual marriage caused by Gay Marriage should Gays be allowed to marry.....a very hard thing to prove.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:09 PM on 11/25/2008
- M1 I'm a Fan of M1 44 fans permalink
photo

This means if the California Supreme court does not refuse to hear the case on its merits by using a technicality of procedure to relieve it of its obligation, Gay Marriage will be legalized in March of 2008 in California.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:13 PM on 11/25/2008
- harriscrl3 I'm a Fan of harriscrl3 191 fans permalink

Good!!!!

As far as Im concerned if you are against children being adopted and finding loving homes you must really hate children.

Carol

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 11/25/2008
- wijg I'm a Fan of wijg 44 fans permalink
photo

It's also unconstitutional to prohibit gay couples from marrying...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:37 AM on 11/25/2008

I disagree. Marriage is inherently meant as a religious vow between a man and a woman. With that said, I fully support the identical legal rights for same sex couples and the applicable term would be a civil union. I also would support legislation that applies the civil union title to heterosexual couples who do not want their union recognized by God or by any other relgious connotation.

I believe president-elect Obama agrees with my perspective on this.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 11/25/2008

"Marriage is inherently meant as a religious vow between a man and a woman. "

Inherently? Bull. Throughout human history, marriage has, until recently, a property issue of men taking ownership of women. If religion wishes to claim marriage, then this issue is no longer one that the government can have any say in at all. In which case, there can no longer be marriages performed by judges for people of no religious faith and/or atheists.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:33 PM on 11/25/2008
- Carianne I'm a Fan of Carianne 3 fans permalink

Reverse - If Marriage is "inherently meant as a religious vow", then why not allow the church performing the ceremony to determine who it can be between? Isn't the government determining who pastors, rabbis or other religious leaders can marry an inherent violation of the separation of church and state?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 11/25/2008
- Kamric314 I'm a Fan of Kamric314 5 fans permalink
photo

"Marriage is inherently meant as a religious vow between a man and a woman. "

Not Quite...No church in this country issues a marriage license. Not even to heterosexual couples. The license is issued by the state. It is really nothing more than a legal contract between 2 people. The contract can be ratified by a Justice of the Peace or anyone else that has the legal authority to ratify the contract to make it legal and binding. The contract does not have to be ratified in a church or by a clergyperson. Therfore, it is only a matter of religious opinion that marriage is inherently between a man and a woman. As we all know, our forefathers were very clear about separation of church and state therefore it seems logical that if folks want to ban same-sex marriage, they'll need to come up with reasons that are not Bible based.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 11/25/2008
- psmarc93 I'm a Fan of psmarc93 10 fans permalink

Sorry, but you're wrong ReverseCurve. "Inherent" meaning is, well, meaningless before the law. History proves you wrong -- polygamy, concubines, marriage as property, etc. are far more "traditional" or "inherent" definitions of "marriage" rather than the recent Victorian concept (less than two centuries old) of one man and one woman marrying for love.
While it's true religions have "marriage," and by the bye, many Christian denominations have same sex "marriage" (Unitarian, Metropolitan Community Church, Church of Christ, Unity, etc.), "marriage" is also a legal union defined by the states -- in the same category as coorporations and business partnerships -- with no restrictions of religion whatsoever. Atheists can "marry" in every state.
Therefore, if the state is going to have a union, "Marriage," then it must treat all citizens as equals under the law. Either leave "marriage" to the churches and remove it from state certification, or make "marriage" include all tax paying citizens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 PM on 11/25/2008
photo

sorry, reverse, but you're caught up in the semantics of the argument. there is CIVIL "marriage" and then there is the RELIGIOUS equivalent. please, separate the two.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:03 PM on 11/25/2008
- KUjHwk I'm a Fan of KUjHwk 3 fans permalink

Excellent arguments everyone! Just like it took some time to reverse Ples.sy v. Fergu.son with Brown v. Board, law schools are producing brill.iant law.yers everyday that will, in a couple gener.ations, make this issue and non-issue. It's inev.itable. ReverseCurve, I suggest you brace yourself.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:17 PM on 11/25/2008
- Sumocat I'm a Fan of Sumocat 35 fans permalink

"Miami Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman ruled Tuesday there was 'no rational basis' for prohibiting gays from adopting children." -- If having a rational basis was a requirement, there wouldn't be any gay-specific laws in the first place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:36 AM on 11/25/2008
photo

Maybe the people figure that gay people molest kids and not straight. Thats stupid in its thinking anyways.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 11/25/2008
- KUjHwk I'm a Fan of KUjHwk 3 fans permalink

That's why you have proper scre.ening, to weed out potential cra.zies, which come in all sha.pes, si.zes, co.lors, nat.ional.ities, genders and s.ex.ualities.

The scre.ening part is what Florida needs to focus on instead of den.ying chil.dren good hom.es. This is the same state that, a couple years ago, lost a you.ng gi.rl in the fos.ter care syst.em and, as far as I know, still hasn't located her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:55 PM on 11/25/2008

I am so glad to hear that Martin Gill will be able to adopt these two kids. There are so many children that need love and a chance to have a family. It is incomprehensible to me how any court could even conceive of the idea of not allowing gays to be adoptive parents. I say God Bless you to each and every person who wants to adopt, and give love to these children. I can only hope that more and more courts will follow and recall all these types of laws unconstitutional.
Love is love, and should be recognized for what it is. God Bless you Martin Gill, and all the Martin Gill's out there!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 AM on 11/25/2008
- westreal I'm a Fan of westreal 20 fans permalink

People should stop trying to legislate personal lives. You can't stop people from adopting, marrying who they want or stop people from having same sex relationships. It's not gonna happen. You loose.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 11/25/2008
- abigail1 I'm a Fan of abigail1 36 fans permalink

good.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 11/25/2008

hells yeah! this is great!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:28 AM on 11/25/2008
- loper2008 I'm a Fan of loper2008 7 fans permalink

Good news.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:27 AM on 11/25/2008
- Grunty1 I'm a Fan of Grunty1 229 fans permalink

Of course institutionalized bigotry, in any form, is unconstitutional.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:26 AM on 11/25/2008
- gayinmt I'm a Fan of gayinmt 12 fans permalink
photo

I don't know the answer to your question. To some of us it's clear as day.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:30 AM on 11/25/2008
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 (4 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect