In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
FLORIDA JUDGE CALLS BAN ILLEGAL
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
Florida judge allows gay man to adopt foster children, calls ban illegal
By Tonya Alanez and Robert Nolin | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
November 26, 2008
A Miami trial judge's ruling allowing a gay man to adopt two foster children appears headed for the Florida Supreme Court and a test that could overturn the last complete ban of gay adoption in the nation.
"There is no rational basis to preclude homosexuals from adopting," Judge Cindy S. Lederman said Tuesday in a Miami-Dade County juvenile courtroom, declaring Florida's 31-year-old ban on gay adoption illegal.
She cited expert testimony saying there is no sound science to justify the ban.
Upon hearing the judge's words, Frank Martin Gill patted his eyes with a folded white tissue, grateful for the opportunity to permanently parent the children he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas 2004.
"Today I've cried my first tears of joy in my life," said Gill, 47, a flight attendant who lives in North Miami. "We are elated. . I wasn't here to make history. I was here to do the best thing for a 4- and an 8-year-old."
An appeal would quickly follow, state attorneys said, which could set the stage for a constitutional showdown of the ban that dates back to the 1970s anti-homosexual crusade of former Miss America runner-up Anita Bryant.
Until a higher court rules, Lederman's decision affects only Gill's case and any others that would come before her, said Gill's attorney, Robert Rosenwald, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
They were allowed to foster childer but cant adopt?....The kids were healthy, fine, and the authority that placed the children didnt have a concern the foster parents were gay but they couldnt adopt them????? give me a freakin break
By Tonya Alanez and Robert Nolin | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
November 26, 2008
A Miami trial judge's ruling allowing a gay man to adopt two foster children appears headed for the Florida Supreme Court and a test that could overturn the last complete ban of gay adoption in the nation.
"There is no rational basis to preclude homosexuals from adopting," Judge Cindy S. Lederman said Tuesday in a Miami-Dade County juvenile courtroom, declaring Florida's 31-year-old ban on gay adoption illegal.
She cited expert testimony saying there is no sound science to justify the ban.
Upon hearing the judge's words, Frank Martin Gill patted his eyes with a folded white tissue, grateful for the opportunity to permanently parent the children he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas 2004.
"Today I've cried my first tears of joy in my life," said Gill, 47, a flight attendant who lives in North Miami. "We are elated. . I wasn't here to make history. I was here to do the best thing for a 4- and an 8-year-old."
An appeal would quickly follow, state attorneys said, which could set the stage for a constitutional showdown of the ban that dates back to the 1970s anti-homosexual crusade of former Miss America runner-up Anita Bryant.
Until a higher court rules, Lederman's decision affects only Gill's case and any others that would come before her, said Gill's attorney, Robert Rosenwald, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
They were allowed to foster childer but cant adopt?....The kids were healthy, fine, and the authority that placed the children didnt have a concern the foster parents were gay but they couldnt adopt them????? give me a freakin break
Comments
If, however, there is a statistically significant increase in the percentage of gay children as a result of these adoptions, then the ban should remain.
It is not a question of right or wrong, it is a question of altering the normal development of these kids' sexuality through placement in gay homes.
The big question is whether an honest study can even be conducted given the current PC environment.
Brad Steele
There is little or no difference in the effect on the children being raised (reared for the Yankees(no pun intended)) by homosexual foster parents or homosexual adoptive parents. If they allow homosexuals to be foster parents, it's only right to let them adopt.
Of course they could have put those kids back with the parents that abandoned them or the kids were taken away from them for abuse. I have heard of very few cases of a GAY parent abusing children but everyday I hear of some scumbag "Straight" commiting crimes against their own children..
How many times have we heard of some HETRO FOSTER parent abusing children, almost daily...[:0]
quote:She cited expert testimony saying there is no sound science to justify the ban.
Hmmm! As I recall, is that not the same thing the judges said about smoking cigarettes until the science finally caught up, and all the damage was done.
Comparing smoking and parenting by gays???
No, he's comparing Scientific evidence.
Adequate to foster parent, but not to parent?
Either they are both or neither.
How conveniently we forget to judging each individual rather than using a collective bias when it suits our agenda[:(].
quote:Originally posted by Classic095
Comparing smoking and parenting by gays???
No, he's comparing Scientific evidence.
Exactly!
Larry - The reason there is no scientific evidence to either support or reject this ruling is because there has been little to no scientific evidence accumulated to make an objective informed determination about what this kind of home environment will do to a child. This is exactly why smoking cigarettes went on so long and so many lives were ruined. I am not saying this will ruin a child, but basing a legal determination on lack of scientific evidence that does not exist is not sound logic; however, it is politically expedient.
I'm sorry, that is just asnine.
Adequate to foster parent, but not to parent?
Either they are both or neither.
How conveniently we forget to judging each individual rather than using a collective bias when it suits our agenda[:(].
Please, if your point has merit, then argue it without derogatory statements / accusations. We just do not know the long term consequences at this point of this determination by this judge. I agree with Larry, placing a child with abusive parental figures is in itself destructive. However, insinuating only hetero parents are abusive is not constructive and weakens your arguement.
Florida judge allows gay man to adopt foster children, calls ban illegal
By Tonya Alanez and Robert Nolin | South Florida Sun-Sentinel
November 26, 2008
A Miami trial judge's ruling allowing a gay man to adopt two foster children appears headed for the Florida Supreme Court and a test that could overturn the last complete ban of gay adoption in the nation.
"There is no rational basis to preclude homosexuals from adopting," Judge Cindy S. Lederman said Tuesday in a Miami-Dade County juvenile courtroom, declaring Florida's 31-year-old ban on gay adoption illegal.
She cited expert testimony saying there is no sound science to justify the ban.
Upon hearing the judge's words, Frank Martin Gill patted his eyes with a folded white tissue, grateful for the opportunity to permanently parent the children he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas 2004.
"Today I've cried my first tears of joy in my life," said Gill, 47, a flight attendant who lives in North Miami. "We are elated. . I wasn't here to make history. I was here to do the best thing for a 4- and an 8-year-old."
An appeal would quickly follow, state attorneys said, which could set the stage for a constitutional showdown of the ban that dates back to the 1970s anti-homosexual crusade of former Miss America runner-up Anita Bryant.
Until a higher court rules, Lederman's decision affects only Gill's case and any others that would come before her, said Gill's attorney, Robert Rosenwald, of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
They were allowed to foster childer but cant adopt?....The kids were healthy, fine, and the authority that placed the children didnt have a concern the foster parents were gay but they couldnt adopt them????? give me a freakin break
Is this the same FL authority that allowed kids to be killed in foster care?....
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
I'm sorry, that is just asnine.
Adequate to foster parent, but not to parent?
Either they are both or neither.
How conveniently we forget to judging each individual rather than using a collective bias when it suits our agenda[:(].
Please, if your point has merit, then argue it without derogatory statements / accusations. We just do not know the long term consequences at this point of this determination by this judge. I agree with Larry, placing a child with abusive parental figures is in itself destructive. However, insinuating only hetero parents are abusive is not constructive and weakens your arguement.
You forget I work in social services, so I have seen both sides of the proverbial coin. I've seen some messed-up parents on both sides. I don't think, in my own admittedly limited experience, neither has the moral nor ethical "higher ground." I was merely cautioning against biases based on nothing other than sexual orientation.
"If you look at studies , you will see that homosexual unions are intrinsically less stable, no matter how you define stability. While there are some apparent exceptions (though these too tend to be less "stable" from the rates of infidelity within those long-term unions), gay and lesbian relationships dissolve at much higher rates than those of married couples (both in terms of number of partners and length of each relationship). And they have a much higher rate of domestic violence".
How is this good for children of G&L couples?
C&P
"If you look at studies , you will see that homosexual unions are intrinsically less stable, no matter how you define stability. While there are some apparent exceptions (though these too tend to be less "stable" from the rates of infidelity within those long-term unions), gay and lesbian relationships dissolve at much higher rates than those of married couples (both in terms of number of partners and length of each relationship). And they have a much higher rate of domestic violence".
How is this good for children of G&L couples?
C & P from where? What is this source you are quoting fact from?
quote:Originally posted by Boomerang
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
I'm sorry, that is just asnine.
Adequate to foster parent, but not to parent?
Either they are both or neither.
How conveniently we forget to judging each individual rather than using a collective bias when it suits our agenda[:(].
Please, if your point has merit, then argue it without derogatory statements / accusations. We just do not know the long term consequences at this point of this determination by this judge. I agree with Larry, placing a child with abusive parental figures is in itself destructive. However, insinuating only hetero parents are abusive is not constructive and weakens your arguement.
You forget I work in social services, so I have seen both sides of the proverbial coin. I've seen some messed-up parents on both sides. I don't think, in my own admittedly limited experience, neither has the moral nor ethical "higher ground." I was merely cautioning against biases based on nothing other than sexual orientation.
God bless you for the service you do. My argument had nothing to do with biases it was with a judge's determination on a child's long term welfare that was based on poor to non-existent science. It was poorly derived, but it was expedient.
If the judge thinks the law is wrong he should work to have it changed, not disregard it.
? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
Expedient in what sense? If the child is thriving in a nurturing envronment, then where is the expedience?
This was not heralded as a person doing right by the child. It was heralded as a blanket right to adopt children by gay people. I have no problem when cases are determined individually on their merits, but to herald this as a gay rights victory is just nuts and politically expedient.
quote:Originally posted by rcrxs old lady
Expedient in what sense? If the child is thriving in a nurturing envronment, then where is the expedience?
This was not heralded as a person doing right by the child. It was heralded as a blanket right to adopt children by gay people. I have no problem when cases are determined individually on their merits, but to herald this as a gay rights victory is just nuts and politically expedient.
We are in agreement in this.
If it is damaging for the children to be raised by a homosexual parent they should not have been placed with a homosexual foster parent. There is no logic in letting a child be raised by a foster parent who is not qualified to be an adoptive parent.
The way I understand it, the difference between a foster parent and an adoptive parent is the state pays a foster parent and an adoptive parent pays the state.
I won't claim to know if being raised by a homosexual parent is harmful, but there needs to be consistency in the law.
Since when can judges ignore the law?
If the judge thinks the law is wrong he should work to have it changed, not disregard it.
That's one of the things judges do. They void laws and even make new laws when they see fit. Sometimes legally, sometimes not so legally, but either way it has the force of law when they do it. That's what they call "legislating from the bench".
"Two University of Southern California professors, Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, published a study in 2001 on same-sex parenting in American Sociological Review. Although favorable to same-sex parenting, they concluded that children of same-sex couples are more likely to experiment with homosexuality.
Biblarz and Stacey quoted a study that found that 64 percent of young adults raised by homosexual women had considered same-sex relationships. By contrast, only 17 percent of young adults raised by heterosexual mothers had considered such a relationship.
"The evidence, while scanty and under-analyzed, hints that parental sexual orientation is positively associated with the possibility that children will be more likely to attain a similar orientation -- and theory and common sense support such a view," they wrote.
The American Academy of Pediatrics made a similar conclusion in a 2002 report".
...There is no logic in letting a child be raised by a foster parent who is not qualified to be an adoptive parent.
...I won't claim to know if being raised by a homosexual parent is harmful, but there needs to be consistency in the law.
I 100% agree with these statements.
Wonder who the study was done by???Looks like someone is saying, I saw this someplace therefore it must be true..
This has nothing to do with whether the court was right or wrong in lifting the ban on Parenting by Gays..
And I wonder just how many people were involved in that study?? Back in 2001, HMMMMMMMM , Find some more modern study and by people qualified to make such a survey..
Please include your source for this information..
quote:ORLANDO, Fla. _ Florida's child advocates are calling on Gov. Jeb Bush to slow down or halt the privatization of the state's child-protection services following the disappearance of a 5-year-old Miami girl while in foster care.
The state's privatization experiment is the largest of its kind in the country. And no one knows for sure whether kids will be any safer.
By the end of 2004, all state Department of Children & Families' child-protection, adoption and foster-care services_the same ones that failed to notice that Miami's Rilya Wilson had been missing for 15 months_will be contracted out to a patchwork of nonprofit agencies all over Florida.
Yep, I'm glad you trust these folks to do the "right" thing regarding children......
I for one would rather see a child in a home with two gay parents that take care of them and provide for their needs than a child in a Heterosexual home being abused or sexually molested..It would be nice if we lived in a utopia , where parents looked after their children, then there would be no need for Gays to adopt because there would be no children available..However since we have a society full of scum bags that abandon , abuse, and kill their children we have to make do with what we have,,[:(]
On the other theme of Learned verses Genetic:
Scientists have long debated whether homosexuals are born or bred. Ongoing research by neuroscientists at the Karolinska Institute, one of Europe's largest medical universities in Stockholm, Sweden, presents more evidence for the former being the case.
Homosexuality has gone from being once classed as a mental illness to being regarded as either a sin or an acceptable variation of human behavior. Whatever your view, research in this area points to a biological origin for homosexual behavior.
There is a reason that these kids are up for adoption, and obviously they were not given up by perfect "straight" persons.
A child needs love and stability that they obviously did not get from their "straight" parents, far be it from me to say that they should not get it from "gay" parents if they are willing.
Don: Those agencies have nothing to do with this post. It is about two specific People trying to adopt two kids they have been raising for 4 years and the courts decicions, not what some agency wants..These agencies are all we have at the present. With any problem people are going to fall through the cracks, One example of something gone bad doesnt negate all the good that has been done.
I for one would rather see a child in a home with two gay parents that take care of them and provide for their needs than a child in a Heterosexual home being abused or sexually molested..It would be nice if we lived in a utopia , where parents looked after their children, then there would be no need for Gays to adopt because there would be no children available..However since we have a society full of scum bags that abandon , abuse, and kill their children we have to make do with what we have,,[:(]
On the other theme of Learned verses Genetic:
Scientists have long debated whether homosexuals are born or bred. Ongoing research by neuroscientists at the Karolinska Institute, one of Europe's largest medical universities in Stockholm, Sweden, presents more evidence for the former being the case.
Homosexuality has gone from being once classed as a mental illness to being regarded as either a sin or an acceptable variation of human behavior. Whatever your view, research in this area points to a biological origin for homosexual behavior.
It has everything to do with the FL foster care system and the decisions they make.
Been here since 1971. Born here in Boston, lived within sight of it all my life and I again live in the city
Nobody here has ever used the term "reared" to describing raising children and been within my earshot.
The term we Billy Yanks use is "raised", same as Johnny Reb
Carry on [:D]
I know some one will say what about a man and women that have physical problems that will not let them have babies - completely different - does not hold water in this case.
But you would deny the rights of others....[:(]
If These two people are not allowed to adopt, how about someone in here taking on the responsibility of the children. Not only these two but all the others that Gays have adopted or wanted to adopt, Gotta save the children ya know...
Who in hell agrees to let those that can not, by terms of physical abilities, have children, foster children or adopt. They have agreed by their lifestyle/"sexual orientation" or what ever they want to call it, to live in a barren environment. They can not have children by natural means. Yet liberal courts want us to believe thay can rear children without changing that childs natural environment. I don't need some stupid study to tell me this is wrong. I don't need years of research on this subject. It is not about civil liberties - it is all about natures liberties and restrictions.
I know some one will say what about a man and women that have physical problems that will not let them have babies - completely different - does not hold water in this case.
You do not believe that a child would benefit from a loving family rather than rot in an orphanage, or foster care?
I am sorry that you think me liberal because I prefer to live and let live if they are not infringing on my lifestyle. This isn't a black and white constitutional right we are discussing, it is peoples biased, prejudiced beliefs.
Sometimes each of us need to get over our own selfishness and look at the bigger picture.This is not to glorify "the greater good"
Who in hell agrees to let those that can not, by terms of physical abilities, have children, foster children or adopt.
I know some one will say what about a man and women that have physical problems that will not let them have babies - completely different - does not hold water in this case.
But your own logic is contradictory then- your criteria is 'those that can not, by terms of physical abilities have children'
You have set the stage for that argument, BlueTic
So what if a guy or gal who is single wants to adopt? If your argument requires the sexual equipment to produce babies, then the stand-up comedian in me wonders if you'd like hermaphrodites to be foster parents! [:o)]
What about 'mos makes then bad fathers? What about let's-be's (you have to say that term to yourself to get it) makes them bad Moms? As long as they are good people, who cares and what business is it of mine? What if two gay guys adopt a little girl? Do they teach her gayness? Do they teach her how to love women or something? Uh, how does their lifestyle do that? That seems absurd to me
It is not a constitutional right to have children. It is a right of nature. Those of you who have been liberalized and PCed into thinking every person has the same rights to a storybook family no matter thier lifestyle are trying very hard to change nature - and then only listen to those of science and academia to prove you wrong. You want studies and you want sound proof that you will ignore anyway.
I do not have to agree. Oh - lets don't look at natural selection.
Man (or humaniods) has been around this planet 1-3 million years. Just now (the last 20 years) you want to argue that we can change nature and as if in a scientific study do an experiment with our children being "raised" in a different environment.
I do not agree.
It is not a constitutional right to have children. It is a right of nature. Those of you who have been liberalized and PCed into thinking every person has the same rights to a storybook family no matter thier lifestyle are trying very hard to change nature - and then only listen to those of science and academia to prove you wrong. You want studies and you want sound proof that you will ignore anyway.
I do not have to agree. Oh - lets don't look at natural selection.
Man (or humaniods) has been around this planet 1-3 million years. Just now (the last 20 years) you want to argue that we can change nature and as if in a scientific study do an experiment with our children being "raised" in a different environment.
No, you do not have to agree, that is what is great about this country (for now). I will tell you that homosexuality has been around as long as humans, it is not a last 20 year event. Hell look at the Romans.
Don't act like I'm stupid - I know the activity has been around as long as man. Just now in our liberal society you are asking for gays to raise children. This is new and is an experiment that is not natural.
Do you think a child - born of a mother and father - and for whatever reason is placed in an orphanage/fostercare - has the right to be raised by a mother and a father?
I think the child should have a right to be loved, and safe. God did not grant me the power to decide what is right for the populace, that is his job. He can smite people all he wants but I was taught to judge not, it's not in my job description
Chaosrob -
Don't act like I'm stupid - I know the activity has been around as long as man. Just now in our liberal society you are asking for gays to raise children. This is new and is an experiment that is not natural.
whoa, those are your words, not mine. You have every right to believe what you want to believe, I am not being snide, or ignorant towards you.
I am not askingfor anything for anyone here, I simply offered my opinion which I thought was my right to give. The simple truth is homosexuals have raised children since people have been around.
This country is not as old as civilization, our puritan beliefs have not ruled this earth forever. Matter of fact I would believe that our stance on this is "johnny come lately" compared with history.