Political Discussions
Florida’s gay adoption ban unconstitutional
Posted by timethief • 12/05/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: adoption, children, court cases, Florida, gay rights, same sex couples
Florida’s gay adoption ban unconstitutional
Judge says 1977 law lacks ‘any rational basis’
The Florida law that bans gay men and lesbians from adopting children is unconstitutional and “without any rational basis,” according to a ruling by Miami Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman. ...
Previous challenges to the adoption ban have failed in Florida courtrooms. Gill’s case marked the first time a state-level court was presented scientific evidence that showed gay parents were no different from straight parents in providing a safe and stable home.
The state, in turn, argued that gay parents were mentally unfit and could be drug abusers or pedophiles....
Juan del Hierro, a local gay rights activist, said Lederman’s ruling also sent a message to supporters of equal marriage rights in Florida.
“It tells us that we have to be persistent,” he said. “It tells everybody that just went through Amendment 2 [which banned same-sex marriage in Florida] that with persistence and hope, equality will be ours.”
Read the full article -> washblade.com/2008/12-5/news/national/13690.cfm
User Comments
-
Hooray!!!!!!!
-
YAY! What a wonderful Christmas this family will have.
Lederman said it was undeniable that Gill and his partner of eight years have provided a safe and stable permanent home for the boys. The couple can now adopt the 4-year-old and 8-year-old half brothers that arrived on their doorstep at midnight during an emergency foster care placement around Christmas in 2004.-
Wait--the law allows for gay couples to act as foster parents but not to adopt? No matter which side of the issue you fall on, that's just absurd. -
Not anymore, now they can adopt.
Of course, it's still funny that they can adopt children, but not get married
-
Why, Anok? Many people allow single people to adopt.
-
Because the argument of those who disapprove of gay marriage is that it..... destroys families, and harms....children....
-
Depending on your spiritual beliefs yes on the basis of harm because some faiths believe that it can cause spiritual harm to the children.
This on the basis that this spiritual union ties in directly with procreation. Only by nature (or by God, whatever you want to call it) can heterosexual couples can procreate naturally. Thus homosexual couples can only procreate unnaturally. Since procreation is a part of purpose in being this makes homosexual couples unnatural. The influence in what the parents could have in regards to homosexuality could reflect upon a sensitive and influential child thus being spiritually damaging to them.
On "damaging to families" I don't agree with this directly. Depending on the people in the family it may occur as a side effect of events but not in direct response to. Family members should love their own regardless of mistakes or bad choices. That doesn't mean they have to approve of their actions, but that doesn't mean disowning the member or degrade them are appropriate actions either.
If implying Christian principles here - how could one love the sinner but not the sin if they weren't around to be loved? Granted humans are humans and some will opt the negative side of the pasture, but for the majority I don't necessarily see this. -
Yes, I understand the reasoning behind it.
It is fortunate for homosexuals who have families, however, that none of those predictions about their influence on children is factually, scientifically, or psychologically correct.
Children raised in homes with gay parents are just the same as those raise by hetero parents.
By the way - homosexuals can have children naturally. They are homosexual, not sterile. -
Your measure of whether homosexuality is "natural" seems to be connected with the belief that homosexual men and women are unable to have children with each other (through homosexual intercourse). It belies the fact that many homosexual people have produced children with heterosexual partners, prior to "coming out" and even after "coming out".
Lest we forget, all of the sexual acts that homosexuals engage in are also engaged in by a majority of heterosexuals. Since homosexual acts do not result in pregnancy, by your definition they are not "natural". Presumably then, you would agree that all non-procreative sexual acts are not "natural" regardless of the gender of those involved, right?
If procreation is the standard for what is "natural", then all sexual acts between persons incapable of reproduction for any reason whatsoever are "unnatural" purely based on the gender-orientation of the individuals involved.
-
-
I saw that. The religious right in Florida -- which are the Xtra-Krispy kind -- are totally freaking out. When they're in a complete panic, it means that something sane has happened.-
It does make for a good barometer, doesn't it?
-
Yeah, it does.
-
-
Like I said
In another thread
It seems that gayness
Has got some okayness
Who you bed
Has got no cred
The judge has spoken
And she ain't jokin'!
-
I ♥ your poetry
-
*clap*clap*clap*
-
-
-
I can't wait to see when people get to marry gorillas and adopt baby kangaroo to raise as children. What a wonderful world that would be.
-
You forgot to mention NAMBLA.
-
On one hand, I don't believe gorillas or other animals, who can't read and write, and who can't produce the required documentation (human live birth certificates), can successfully apply for and receive marriage licenses from the state, and get 2 human witnesses, as well as, a state authorized marriage commissioner to conduct the service and sign the required documentation.
On the other, I do know from reading posts on this forum, and from reading the vote yes for proposition 8 propaganda and watching their videos, that there are some people with their heads wedged so far up their nether regions that they hold such ridiculous notions. I guess they must have sh*t for brains, eh? -
Why, you have a cute gorilla girl in mind?
-
Don't bust your ass on that slippery slope.
-
Straw man. Another lame-a$$ed argument from the boy.
What a refreshing change of pace... -
ooh hate to tell you this but Spain has already granted some "Human Rights" to gorillas.
-
-
Actually gorillas can write some if taught and can talk through sign language and pictures. It would be like asking a child to go through the processes of marriage. It would be challenging but could be done with someone shadowing them and seeing it through.
-
Unless we had science intervene to create a gorilla with an IQ above 90, I don't see it happening.
-
They still cannot consent to a legally binding contract.
-
-
You still have Indians marrying animals in the Hindu religion.
Still remembering a story from a few months ago about a lady trying to marry a cobra.
Some people are beyond crazy.-
So Anok and voodookobra, why are you denying the rights of a person to marry an animal? If the person owns the animal, then does the animal actually have an opinion? I mean if a woman can marry another woman, then what is wrong with someone marrying a cow? This is one of my examples to why marriage should be defined as a man and a woman. (if you haven't caught on)
-
It's too bad that your argument is utterly false.
Animals can't consent.
People who use arguments like that against homosexuals simply perpetuate the hatred of something they don't like. -
Anok: Do you mean "udderly" false? ba dum bump
So a cow and a woman are the same?
What's wrong with defining marriage was between consenting adults? -
LOLLOLLOL
So a cow and a woman are the same?
Maybe his confusion explains a few things, what do you think? -
We need to get this kid a playboy.
-
I dunno, he might try to marry it.
-
Thank goodness they stopped using staples to hold it together.
-
Anok said it: Cows cannot consent.
-
I don't think I want to know what holds those magazines together now....(Or why they opted to stop using staples!!)
Eeeeew
-
-
-
My balaclava is knitted.
-
And you guys are still to dumb to figure out that I am not for animals marrying people
Really? You're usually so openminded... -
I think he's a closet case
-
Anok must have come out of a closet to wear that hideous thing.
-
You're right! My balaclava does reside in a closet when I'm not wearing it!
Where do you keep yours?
-
-
Hey just because a cow has different methods of communication doesn't mean they can't love. Indians marry animals. The spirits are just in a different stage of reincarnation that doesn't mean we are the same and can share each others companionship.
-
They can't consent, however and further have no comprehension of man made institutions.
Animals have no way of commiting and fulfilling the legal obligations of marriage, nor can they act in ways that are part of the beenfits of marriage.
For example, a cow cannot make legal medical decisions for his or her human spouse. A cow cannot be the power of attorney for his or her spouse, a cow can't do anything with the inheritance left by his or her spouse, nor can the cow handle the probate legalities after said spouse dies.
Marriage is a man made construct, and so animals neither comply, nor benefit from it.
Humans are the only animals that get married.
I'd also like to see something to prove that people marry animals in India. I have a feeling that you are using a stereotype. -
And don't forget consummating the marriage!
I thought I read a story about the woman marrying a snake, however I don't know if the marriage was sanctioned by the government.
Someone else look it up, I'm not in a bestiality mood today. -
I think the assumption is a person/creature is not able to provide consent if no one is ablt to understand he/she/it. So far, a cow hasn't been able to provide consent understandable to humans, therefore, Bessy isn't able to marry under human law, at least in the U.S.
Theboy, are you suggesting the U.S. should start adopting laws based on them being laws in other countries? -
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1609295.cms
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Man_marries_dog_to_ward_off_curse/article...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3004930.stm
And most commonly do the Hindi marry dog's for good luck but there are numerous other cases as well. And yes this is practiced in India. -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-animal_marriage
Human-animal marriage, i.e., marriage between humans and non-human animals, is not recognized in law by any country at present, although historically people have married animals as part of religious traditions or to bring good luck, often involving elaborate ceremonies. Such marriages as are allowed by tradition, or within a culture, are often symbolic or ritual, rather than the more usual recognition of a relationship.
India also reportedly still has high traffic for child prostitutes in te human trafficking trade, and still allows for children to marry.
Probably not the best example you could give -
People are so determined to legalize gay marriage, but yet they shoot down any opinions of anybody else. Figures since it is a double standard.
-
You don't get the gist of a debate, do you?
The format is point, counterpoint. Point, counterpoint. "Shooting down someone's opinion" is exactly what you do in a debate, only if you have an argument that works, of course.
When you can no longer provide a counterpoint, you've technically lost the debate. -
I get the meaning of debate and you feel like it has to go the way you want it for you to agree with it. Gay rights activists automatically consider someone a gay hater or a religious lunatic if they are against it. That is what I am talking about.
-
In other threads, I have addressed several different reasons of why people oppose gay marriage.
While none of them are flattering, they are all true, and, not limited to entirely to hatred or fanaticism.
However, actively participating in the restrictions of people's rights simply because you disagree with how they live their lives is, in fact, hateful.
-
In the Hindu religion elders are capable of consenting for the animals.
In their religion the spirit is reincarnated throughout multiple stages and lifetimes. Even the cockroach is a spirit and even you could be a cockroach in your next lifetime.
So why is it that Christian's can't discriminate against homosexual marriage but you are allowed to discriminate against the human-animal marriage of the Hindi?
If you preach equality and fairness where is it at for them?-
Their marriages are religious symbols - not actual marriages.
They don't have a contract with the animals, nor do they have sex with the animals. -
So you are saying that these religious traditions and beliefs are less valuable than the gay lifestyle? -
Less legal.
Value is subjective. -
They are not marriages in the sense that we accept marriage is what I was saying. They are religious ceremonies with symbolic meaning - they are not sexual relationships with legal benefits like the OP intimated.
-
-
"Just as good seed, sown in a good field, culminates in a birth, so the son born from an Aryan father in an Aryan mother deserves every trans formative ritual. Some wise men value the seed, others the field, and still others both the seed and the field; but this is the final decision on this subject: seed sown in the wrong field perishes right inside it; and a field by itself with no seed also remains barren. And since sages have been born in (female) animals by the power of the seed, and were honored and valued, therefore the seed is valued." - Manusmriti 10:69-72.
But to give you something out of this debate this has changed over time.
Section 377 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) makes it illegal for a person to have sexual contact with an Animal. "Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Only penetration is considered here.-
Yes, fertility works that way, man, animal or plant.
the relevance is....?
-
-
Gay people cannot produce fertile offspring together, so the point is? A woman and a cow can adopt a baby and so can two gay people.
-
So you support the banning of marriage for infertile couples then? Since after all, they can adopt, and a person and a cow can adopt, I mean they're practically the same thing!
-
@Anok
According to that thinking, my husband were "unnatural" for getting married and having sex despite the fact we would produce no children. -
Never said I did. That was you. So are you saying that people in India marrying cows is wrong?
-
Also, considering that in nature there are no gay relationships in nature whatsoever. (Please tell me if there are if yo find any) We are going against natural selection. If we were meant to have gay relationships, then don't you think other animals would do this also? It seems humans have come up with this phenomena.
-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
[We are going against natural selection.]
Wonderful!
We humans are intelligent enough to resist the most barbaric aspects of natural selection. Natural selection is quite cruel. Aside from symbiotic relationships, animals have no regard for other species.
Natural selection isn't a force to succumb to, jlowe. It's an aspect of nature that must be understood and overcome. -
Well, if you look at the information I provided, they are not "marrying" them in the sense that we understand marriage.
I have no problem with their religious symbolism to animals. In India, animals are considered sacred, and so they worship them in varying ways.
They are not, however, marrying them in the sense that you and others have implied - it is not a legal marriage requiring consent, sexual relations, or benefits/obligations. They will not be putting the animals on the deed to the house, or leaving their inheritance to it.
In other words, it's not bestiality.
Theboy - there are now over 10000 species of animals and insects that are recorded as having regular homosexual intercourse. You do need to keep on on the times. -
@VoodooKobra
"Natural selection isn't a force to succumb to, jlowe. It's an aspect of nature that must be understood and overcome."
Hhaha this shows how little knowledge you have of the subject. Without natural selection, who knows how the world would look. Species select dominant traits to pass onto offspring and therefore increase rate of survival in the future generations. If we went against natural selection, eventually over thousands of years, animals would start to compete against us and ultimately win. We would stay the same while they constantly change to fit the environment.
So you think people not supporting gay marriage is barbaric? that is your opinion and your entitled to it. I disagree. -
we go against natural selection every day, and have for a very long time.
Every medical procedure and medicine and technological advancement we have goes against natural selection.
If we only went with natural selection there would be far fewer humans on this earth, and we would indeed be in competition with animals. -
Let me spell it out for you:
From THIS POINT ON we can resist the MOST BARBARIC ASPECTS OF natural selection.
[So you think people not supporting gay marriage is barbaric?]
Is English your first language? No, I was talking about natural selection. Opposing gay marriage is not barbaric, per se, but opposing gay marriage without a solid, fallacy-free rational reason (hint: there are none) is supporting a position fueled by many hateful people. In a sense, you're a hate-enabler, even if you don't disagree out of fear or hatred. The position is largely hatred.
Reading comprehension.
-
-
Rishyashringa in scripture was born of a deer and a hermit.
Narasimha born of man and lion is another example.
Even in india's ancient times it was only taboo less punishable to rape and other sexual crimes.
Even in current times it isn't prosecuted as much in India. -
This topic of this thread is reflected in the title and tags.
The locale we are discussing is Florida, USA.
The topic is same sex human couples being allowed to adopt human children.
IMO symbolic ritual marriages between humans and animals in India have no legitimate place in this discussion.
title: Florida’s gay adoption ban unconstitutional
tags: adoption, children, court cases, Florida, gay rights, same sex couples
Pandering to those continually make off-topic comments makes absolutely no sense to me. My time is far too valuable to spend it on legitimizing off-topic comments by responding to them communitiesonline.homestead.com/dealingwithtrolls.html -
And yes Anok I may disagree with homosexuality on spiritual and evolutionary basis but I never said that I wished evil to fall upon homosexuals - This is a misrepresentation of it's definition.
I in fact have stated otherwise that living a proper example and loving one regardless as a method in hope to inspire them otherwise is proper. Not wishing evil to fall upon them. That's just putting words into my mouth. Tisk. Tisk.
And based on what you say Anok if a marriage of zoophilia is religiously symbolic to the Hindi and also otherwise noting that they can't reproduce does that mean that homosexual marriages should be treated as symbols rather than sexual in nature considering they can't reproduce either? Does that mean without discriminating against the relations between them that on procreational and evolutionary standards that both should equally be treated as trophy marriages then?
A bit off topic - And if one disagrees with this since the ways of nature are not a fair argument does that mean that evolution in science taught in schools is an illegitimate argument?-
I didn't say they were symbolic becasue they can't reproduce.
I said they were symbolic, and not legal marriages, nor are they marriages in the context of how we understand marriage.
it is not bestiality, no sex occurs, no marriage rights are bestowed. They are not "spouses" that share legal benefits - or nay benefits. They are not a couple living together as spouses do.
And I don't know what the rest is about? -
My response was because neither can human and animal reproduce nor same gender reproduce should they not be treated the same?
-
No they should not be treated the same.
Different species reproduction can be rather dangerous, if it works at all.
Which is totally different from same species reproduction.
There are a multitude of humans who cannot reproduce, and choose not to reproduce - should they be banned from marriage too?
In any case - marriage rights have little or nothing to do with reproduction. Although the rights include child custody rights and parental rights - there are thousands of other rights and obligations that have nothing to do with that. -
No. In America, the power to rule comes from the people. People = humans. Other animals aren't involved in the philosophy that went into the original legal documents (Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.).
Saying you want to treat homosexuals the same way as you treat bestiality is comparing apples to oranges. Homosexuals = two humans. Bestiality = one human, one non-human.
Humans, and only humans (barring artificial intelligence becoming a reality soon) of a certain age, can give legal consent to marry. -
Alright then lets drop "apples" to "oranges" then.
What about NAMBLA then? Children can learn right from wrong and good from bad as early as 4/5 yrs old, and can understand philosophical concepts such as the golden rule or karma as early as 9 yrs old. Puberty occurs 9-14 approx. in girls and in boys 10-17 approx. If this is the case love is a universal emotion that is learned early on so should a 40 yr old man be allowed to have relations with a 13 yr old boy? Even after puberty for those arguing perversion here.
Why can't they get married or have sexual relations if the boy proves competent to understand good from bad and love from hate and has experienced puberty with the man understanding and accepting such? Can't they love? Marriages not even too far back 1920's were these individuals getting married at this age range. So why not now? Should this be allowed too? -
IN the US, the age of consent varies form state to state, however the age of consent to a legal contract (marriage or ANY contract) is 18 years old, when one becomes an adult. With the exception of parental permission to enter into a contract, particularly marriage a child in the US can marry as young as 14 in some states. In fact legally, children are held to a much different standard than an adult.
The reasoning behind that is because children have not yet finished their schooling, and do not posses the wisdom of an education yet to understand legal contracts. They are also easily influenced into bad decisions, and, in the legal system are not held responsible for their actions the same way and adult is. Furthermore, the parents can be held liable for contractual obligations under some circumstances.
Also, children in the US cannot legally drink, smoke, watch porn, vote, and are protected under different labor laws as well as familial based laws concerning their welfare.
In the US, after the industrial age, we realized that children were not, in fact, small adults. They did not comprehend things in the same way as adults, did not have the same wisdom or life experience as adults (how could they?), and generally experienced large emotional swings due to puberty that caused risky and dangerous. They can also be easily taken advantage of.
In the US minors and the mentally handicapped (who are incapable of taking care of themselves) cannot consent to a contract without a guardians approval essentially to protect them from harm.
-
-
And it does have legitimacy here when the other topics are used to make comparisons and contrasts to the topic at hand.
-
title: Florida’s gay adoption ban unconstitutional
tags: adoption, children, court cases, Florida, gay rights, same sex couples
The topic is same sex human couples being allowed to adopt human children.
Is there any possibility that those posting to it have anything "new" to say that specifically addresses the issue?-
I'll add something new:
My brother and his husband to be are thinking about adopting a child, and I think they would make the best parents, ever.
I've even left him and his husband the responsibility of Punky should anything ever happen to me or Mr Anok.
They offer an emotionally and financially stable home (they've already made their fortunes), are highly educated which means better cognitive development for the child, and are beyond loving, protective, and patient.
Yup, smells like a happy home to me : ) -
This isn't the brother who wants to have a Renaissance Fair wedding, is it?
-
No, no, that's my heterosexual brother
Their wedding was beautiful, by the way. Except that the priest, best man and groomsmen had to help him to the alter because he got stuck in the hallway by his armor LOL! -
Nice!
Right now I'm making an 8' foam sword with a bamboo core just to build my endurance.
-
-
Thanks especially to Anok and Timethief as well as VoodooKobra for understanding logic, logical fallicies, debate, the basics of evolution, and culture. To argue from a literal interpretation within the Hindu religion is antithetical to the religion [a typical mistake made by fundamentalist christians] as it is symbolic, metaphoric. I do not have much to add that you have not already covered and that will not convince opponents as they have already made up their minds and are not in it to learn but to get their way, sadly enough.
For the record, there is ample evidence that human beings adapt to circumstance as is required in the marriage laws and procedures according to necessity: since more women than men is often the case not only as females survive more than men but also because war despences with the number of men needed to match the women, polygny [multiple wives, not multiple spouses] has been practiced. There are some areas in the world in which women are at a shortage and there they practice polyandry [one wife w/ more than one husband]. Thus, the concept of marriage is flexible based on culture and need, and it is most certainly not defined solely by religion.
Also, since as far as science and history tells us, homosexuality has been with humankind since the beginning, there must be an advantage to the species. While no one knows what exactly, most hypotheses and studies tend to back up strengthening the family by gays providing more care for children related to them.
One last thing, on a personal level, this elevation of the nuclear, heterosexual family, as those who follow demographics know, is a myth--and has been one for all of America's history. I was force fed this myth through TV growing up in the 1950s when in reality the stats showed a very different picture of family. And as for worshipping the hetero family as being the true, good, proper place to bring up children.....well, not only am I scared for life from the psychological, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse that happened in my family (along with my sisters), the numbers among the general population are staggering. Let's stop the mythmaking and start addressing the problems, including good old Dr. James Dobson's Christian family preaching that disciplining your child with 1/4" PVC pipe is perfectly natural and that girls should submit to everything their fathers say to prepare them for marriage so that they will automatically submit to everything their husbands do and say as they are the only, ultimate authority in the house.-
[While no one knows what exactly, most hypotheses and studies tend to back up strengthening the family by gays providing more care for children related to them.]
Both in terms of time and resources. Having a lesbian aunt might mean a better, more reliable babysitter for the young children and would in turn lead to a statistical increase in mental stability because parents would rely less on strangers to take care of their children.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
