Miami judge rules against Florida gas adoption ban

MissCritter · 11-25-2008, 03:32 PM

Miami judge rules against Florida gay adoption ban

Quote:

By CURT ANDERSON, AP Legal Affairs Writer Curt Anderson, Ap Legal Affairs Writer 39 mins ago
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.
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.

MissCritter · 11-25-2008, 03:38 PM

How can I edit my thread title?? I don't think there was ever a ban on adopting gas.

jdarg · 11-25-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissCritter

How can I edit my thread title?? I don't think there was ever a ban on adopting gas.

But it cought my attention! I was ready to adopt all the gas I could store!

Great article- thanks. I had no idea I lived in the only state that bans adoption by gay couples. How sad, when there are so many families wanting to give homes to unwanted children, and they can't because they are gay.

hnooe · 11-25-2008, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissCritter

How can I edit my thread title?? I don't think there was ever a ban on adopting gas.

Critter--as a partnered gay man, we are now to old to adopt kids! ....but I can really now see the need to "adapt" to gas

MissCritter · 11-25-2008, 04:10 PM

I love the reasoning for the ban: children do better with a mother and a father. Since that's the case, maybe what they really need to ban is divorce.

scooterbug44 · 11-25-2008, 04:29 PM

I am sure it will get overturned, but it's nice to see some reality and common sense trump prejudice! In this case, these children have been happily fostered in the home for 4 years, but legal permanence was being denied - pretty dumb IMO.

Children don't do better because of the number of parents, they do better when they are wanted and loved by people who have the resources to take care of them.

The people who are so against it because of "the social stigma of having gay parents" need only to look in the mirror to see the source of that stigma!

30ashopper · 11-25-2008, 04:43 PM

I wish I could find the brief, I'd love to hear the equal protection arguments. Fascinating stuff.

hnooe · 11-25-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooterbug44

I am sure it will get overturned, but it's nice to see some reality and common sense trump prejudice! In this case, these children have been happily fostered in the home for 4 years, but legal permanence was being denied - pretty dumb IMO.

Children don't do better because of the number of parents, they do better when they are wanted and loved by people who have the resources to take care of them.

The people who are so against it because of "the social stigma of having gay parents" need only to look in the mirror to see the source of that stigma!

I think it is just that simple. What do these children want and need most?..unconditional love and a "home." I am tired of sanctimonious and hypocritical "adults."

poppy · 11-25-2008, 05:03 PM

It's a shame that many people still believe children can catch gay just as easily as catching a cold.

30ashopper · 11-25-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

It's a shame that many people still believe children can catch gay just as easily as catching a cold.

Everybody has to have somebody to hate.

analogman · 11-25-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 30ashopper

Everybody has to have somebody to hate.

To me, that's one of the saddest aspects of our society. Unconditional love cures anything...even this kind of hate!!

analogman · 11-25-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissCritter

How can I edit my thread title?? I don't think there was ever a ban on adopting gas.

Whew! I thought there for a minute I was going to have to give up chili!!

Mango · 11-25-2008, 07:17 PM

I don't get the double standard in this Country. They say they will appeal because kids belong with a mother and father, but yet in Texas, they went and took 400 children from their parents who lived in an LDS community where they probably had several mothers and a father. Then you have these groups that work for the State, like Covenant House in Texas, that make people sign agreements that they will raise the children according to their religious beliefs. So, if you were a Mormon or Jewish etc., you couldn't make application for fostering.

If the State wants to be involved in judging who warrants being a parent, then it should be done for everyone. Chances are there there wouldn't be any children to foster. This makes me crazy.

I know two gay couples who have adopted children and they are the most caring and attentive parents. They may be even over bearing- in a good way. They worry about everything. They dote like crazy. Any kid would be lucky to have them.

idlewind · 11-25-2008, 10:41 PM

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

traderx · 11-25-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

So, you would prefer to see kids remain in an orphanage as opposed to being adopted by a gay couple?

lerxst · 11-25-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

do you mean married heterosexual couples or married homosexual couples?

WaterCourseWay · 11-26-2008, 12:20 AM

It makes me so sad to think that there are kids that desperately need and want to be loved, and there are people who desperately want to love them and tend to their needs, but people are so blinded by their own judgment and misconceptions that they willingly prevent the creation a loving, happy, healthy family, keeping desperate, needy people desperate and needy. Wake up, people. Remove the beams from your eyes. A loving single parent, a loving gay parent, a loving gay couple, ALL are far better than letting these poor children get lost in the system.

Can anyone claim their married, heterosexual parents were perfect? Can anyone claim they don't know at least one person who has married, heterosexual parents yet had a terrible home life growing up because their parents were just not capable of loving and caring for them properly? In my opinion, the ideal of marriage is pure, which is why it is important to me that every adult should have the opportunity to pursue it, no matter what their gender preference of a mate might be... but the reality of marriage is far from the ideal for most folks, and marriage alone provides no guarantee of good parenting.

With family and kids, all that really matters is unconditional love. If you've got that, you can sort the rest out.

30ashopper · 11-26-2008, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

Idlewind, I'm single and IMHO, perfectly capable of raising a family. Are you discriminating against me because of my marital status?

RayStar · 11-26-2008, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by traderx

So, you would prefer to see kids remain in an orphanage as opposed to being adopted by a gay couple?

Thank you I feel the same way. This is a ridculous rule by the judge. The kids are the important ones here. I am not fond of gay relationships but I will support their adoption of kids completely. I think the kids are better off in a home of caring people. Foster care is sometimes awful.

Also, marriage is not for everyone.

poppy · 11-26-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

How about a married male and female Gay couple.

Miss Kitty · 11-26-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

This reminds me of the saying...throwing the baby out with the bath water. You say there is no perfect system, and I agree with that...however, I think it is very narrow minded to say only married couples should be able to adopt. Reading your statement made me think the only people that should be able to adopt are single people...there would be no cause for a seperation issue.

scooterbug44 · 11-26-2008, 09:56 AM

The problem with these laws is that they fail to take into consideration all possible outcomes.

For example, if you make it illegal for single people to adopt, you make it impossible for a family member to adopt children after a tragedy.

If something had happened to my parents, my widowed aunt was to take care of my brother and I. Under a dumbarse law about single people adopting, a loving family member w/ 2 children of her own and who had been personally selected by my parents to care for us due to a variety of factors would not be considered "fit" to adopt us merely because her husband had died of cancer after more than a decade of marriage.

Yes, a stable home with more than one parent to help w/ the workload is preferable, but it sure as sheet isn't a 100% guarantee. The reality of life is that families come in all configurations and combinations and all these rules, regulations, and prejudices do is make it harder for good people to raise a family.

MissCritter · 11-26-2008, 12:48 PM

What a child needs more than anything else is at least one person on this earth who puts that child's life/happiness/welfare above his/her own. Period.

idlewind · 11-26-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooterbug44

The problem with these laws is that they fail to take into consideration all possible outcomes.

For example, if you make it illegal for single people to adopt, you make it impossible for a family member to adopt children after a tragedy.

If something had happened to my parents, my widowed aunt was to take care of my brother and I. Under a dumbarse law about single people adopting, a loving family member w/ 2 children of her own and who had been personally selected by my parents to care for us due to a variety of factors would not be considered "fit" to adopt us merely because her husband had died of cancer after more than a decade of marriage.

Yes, a stable home with more than one parent to help w/ the workload is preferable, but it sure as sheet isn't a 100% guarantee. The reality of life is that families come in all configurations and combinations and all these rules, regulations, and prejudices do is make it harder for good people to raise a family.

I thought we were discussing regular adoptions, not those with family ties and/or family tragedies. I would think exceptions would always be made in case of family ties.

idlewind · 11-26-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 30ashopper

Idlewind, I'm single and IMHO, perfectly capable of raising a family. Are you discriminating against me because of my marital status?

No, I am saying the goal for family court should be to place the child in the best situation possible. That would be a two-parent family:

"Robert Bauserman, PhD, of the Baltimore Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, reviewed 33 studies that examined 1,846 sole-custody and 814 joint-custody children. Bauserman found that children in joint-custody arrangements had fewer behavioral and emotional problems, higher self-esteem and better family relationships and school performance compared with those in sole-custody situations. The contact with both parents, he argues, is the key ingredient in kids' adjustment, he said. "

Provision can be made to give the court latitude in exceptional situations.

idlewind · 11-26-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poppy

How about a married male and female Gay couple.

That is not possible under Florida law.

scooterbug44 · 11-27-2008, 01:55 PM

A gay man and a gay woman CAN get married in Florida - it's them marrying people they are sexually compatible with and who they have been in a realtionship with for years or decades that lawmakers/lobbyists have a problem with.

If a single or gay relative can be a suitable adoptive parent, why can't a single or gay person w/o family ties be a suitable parent?

Marital status is not a determinant of someone's ability to parent - if it was, you wouldn't be able to get married while severely intoxicated at a drive through chapel!

Joint vs. sole custody is not a good analysis of 1 vs. 2 parents IMO - typically a sole custody situation means the marriage/parent situation is more complicated or stressful to begin with - abuse, mental issues, etc.

John R · 11-27-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

No, I am saying the goal for family court should be to place the child in the best situation possible.

What if a gay family is the best situation for the child?

Be careful idle. The gay can rub off, don't get too close.

idlewind · 11-27-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John R

What if a gay family is the best situation for the child?

Be careful idle. The gay can rub off, don't get too close.

Shame on you for promoting such a blatant homophobic stereotype.

John R · 11-27-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Shame on you for promoting such a blatant homophobic stereotype.

oh my gosh, you are so right. what was i thinking?

If I offended any gay men or women with my above post, please whip me publicly on this thread.

Franny · 11-28-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hnooe

Critter--as a partnered gay man, we are now to old to adopt kids! ....but I can really now see the need to "adapt" to gas

You are NOT too old to have children and you would both make excellent parents!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

Pleassssseeeeee, are you kidding me????

Quote:

Originally Posted by John R

oh my gosh, you are so right. what was i thinking?

If I offended any gay men or women with my above post, please whip me publicly on this thread.

idlewind · 11-28-2008, 11:40 AM

I was dead serious.

NoHall · 11-28-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Only married couples should be allowed to adopt children. While not perfect, this is the best method available to insure the child is placed in a long-term stable environment. Once exceptions are made to the rule, you come to the place where children are pawns in seperations. I know birth parents do this to kids every day, but no system is perfect. There probably should be a minimum number of years that the couple has been together as well.

While I don't agree with you in practice, I understand the spirit of your statement. About 10 years ago, one of my most revered and beloved professors from Belmont sat me down and said, "I know how much you love children, and you need to think about whether or not you should have one now, even though you're not married."

I told her that I couldn't do that. I didn't want to bring a child into a world and a home without a father. I grew up in a wonderful, 2-parent home, and I could not purposefully deprive my child of having what I had. She said, "But your father is still in your life, and so is your brother. Your child would have them."

That wasn't the same to me. I couldn't do it--not on purpose. I had a single, female friend at the time who had just adopted a little girl from China and who was about to adopt another from Ecuador. These were two little girls who would otherwise grow up in orphanages, and I was glad that Jennifer could give them a loving home, even if it was with a single mother. I could see myself adopting a teenager eventually...

Meanwhile, I teach a boatload of kids whose parents don't have time to raise them. I'm not sure what their reasons were for having children, but I wish they'd had to take some sort of test first. (People ask me if I have children; I say that I've never borne a child and I live alone, but I currently have 270+ sons...)

I love this clip (beware of mild profanity)...

YouTube - Keanu Reeves in "Parenthood"

idlewind · 11-28-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoHall

While I don't agree with you in practice, I understand the spirit of your statement. About 10 years ago, one of my most revered and beloved professors from Belmont sat me down and said, "I know how much you love children, and you need to think about whether or not you should have one now, even though you're not married."

I told her that I couldn't do that. I didn't want to bring a child into a world and a home without a father. I grew up in a wonderful, 2-parent home, and I could not purposefully deprive my child of having what I had. She said, "But your father is still in your life, and so is your brother. Your child would have them."

That wasn't the same to me. I couldn't do it--not on purpose. I had a single, female friend at the time who had just adopted a little girl from China and who was about to adopt another from Ecuador. These were two little girls who would otherwise grow up in orphanages, and I was glad that Jennifer could give them a loving home, even if it was with a single mother. I could see myself adopting a teenager eventually...

Meanwhile, I teach a boatload of kids whose parents don't have time to raise them. I'm not sure what their reasons were for having children, but I wish they'd had to take some sort of test first. (People ask me if I have children; I say that I've never borne a child and I live alone, but I currently have 270+ sons...)

I love this clip (beware of mild profanity)...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31pQOiclaTo

We all know single people who would make great parents, with or without a helper. And we all know people who should not be allowed within 100 feet of a child, married or not. But if we talk about government sanctioned activities, the goal must be to establish rules that fit the majority of situations. Every study I have ever seen shows that children are more well-adjusted with two parents. That then should be the rule. Judges can then make exceptions for outstanding people or extraordinary situations on a case by case basis. If you do not do it this way you open society up for an uneven, politically motivated process, instead of focusing on the best interests of the children.

SWGB · 11-28-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

We all know single people who would make great parents, with or without a helper. And we all know people who should not be allowed within 100 feet of a child, married or not. But if we talk about government sanctioned activities, the goal must be to establish rules that fit the majority of situations. Every study I have ever seen shows that children are more well-adjusted with two parents. That then should be the rule. Judges can then make exceptions for outstanding people or extraordinary situations on a case by case basis. If you do not do it this way you open society up for an uneven, politically motivated process, instead of focusing on the best interests of the children.

Funny, this is the 2nd post on this thread that you have endorsed bigger government and more government intervention.

Sorry just thought that was the oddest part of this coming from a "conservative".

idlewind · 11-28-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

Funny, this is the 2nd post on this thread that you have endorsed bigger government and more government intervention.

Sorry just thought that was the oddest part of this coming from a "conservative".

Where in the world do you get that I endorse bigger government and more government intervantion? The government has been involved in adoptions since the beginnings of civilized society. And the policy I advocate is more or less the policy of this state and every other for 100+ years.

Camp Creek Kid · 11-28-2008, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mango

I don't get the double standard in this Country. They say they will appeal because kids belong with a mother and father, but yet in Texas, they went and took 400 children from their parents who lived in an LDS community where they probably had several mothers and a father. Then you have these groups that work for the State, like Covenant House in Texas, that make people sign agreements that they will raise the children according to their religious beliefs. So, if you were a Mormon or Jewish etc., you couldn't make application for fostering.

If the State wants to be involved in judging who warrants being a parent, then it should be done for everyone. Chances are there there wouldn't be any children to foster. This makes me crazy.

I know two gay couples who have adopted children and they are the most caring and attentive parents. They may be even over bearing- in a good way. They worry about everything. They dote like crazy. Any kid would be lucky to have them.

Mango, just to clarify. The group of polygamists in Texas are not LDS (Mormon), they are FLDS, which is not the same.

SWGB · 11-28-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

Where in the world do you get that I endorse bigger government and more government intervantion? The government has been involved in adoptions since the beginnings of civilized society. And the policy I advocate is more or less the policy of this state and every other for 100+ years.

Bigger government as you are restricting a percentage of the population from adopting children who need homes. This results in more orphanages, more social services, and ultimately bigger government.

More government intervention comes from the fact that if two people can provide resources and a safe environment for a child why should the actual makeup of their relationship mean anything? I can guarantee that a heterosexual couple who are into swinging would be able to adopt. How healthy a life style is that for a child to wander in to?

idlewind · 11-29-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

Bigger government as you are restricting a percentage of the population from adopting children who need homes. This results in more orphanages, more social services, and ultimately bigger government.

More government intervention comes from the fact that if two people can provide resources and a safe environment for a child why should the actual makeup of their relationship mean anything? I can guarantee that a heterosexual couple who are into swinging would be able to adopt. How healthy a life style is that for a child to wander in to?

I guess you think advocating paving roads is advocating bigger government as well because there will be more accidents, thus we need more troopers.

In fact it is your plan that advocates bigger government. If you have absolutely no guidelines for the courts to follow, then you will need even more investigators to weed though the applicants. Or, are you in favor of turning children over to people without doing any background checks and/or investigations?

You show me a reputable study that says children are better off with one parent than two, and we can talk. Until then, I will believe the hundreds of studies that in fact show a child is better off with two.

John R · 11-29-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

I guess you think advocating paving roads is advocating bigger government as well because there will be more accidents, thus we need more troopers.

In fact it is your plan that advocates bigger government. If you have absolutely no guidelines for the courts to follow, then you will need even more investigators to weed though the applicants. Or, are you in favor of turning children over to people without doing any background checks and/or investigations?

You show me a reputable study that says children are better off with one parent than two, and we can talk. Until then, I will believe the hundreds of studies that in fact show a child is better off with two.

care to source out a few?

SWGB · 11-29-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idlewind

I guess you think advocating paving roads is advocating bigger government as well because there will be more accidents, thus we need more troopers.

In fact it is your plan that advocates bigger government. If you have absolutely no guidelines for the courts to follow, then you will need even more investigators to weed though the applicants. Or, are you in favor of turning children over to people without doing any background checks and/or investigations?

You show me a reputable study that says children are better off with one parent than two, and we can talk. Until then, I will believe the hundreds of studies that in fact show a child is better off with two.

Sorry I'm just not in the mood to google for any kinds of study, but can you show me the study that says a child is better off in an orphanage or foster care for their entire lives as opposed to having at least one parent.

The scary part here is that you clearly haven't done your research. In the State of Florida a single gay man/woman could adopt kids all day long if they met the financial requirements set by the state. However, a couple in a comitted long term relationship could not.

Geo · 11-29-2008, 11:41 AM

I believe there should be no policy limiting adoption to a set number of parents but rather-
each adoption should be evaluated on a case by case basis with the welfare of the child trumping anything else.

Unfit parents should be turned down whether they are male, female, straight, gay, single, married, religious, agnostic, etc.

Fit parents should be given the opportunity to make a difference in a child's life.

2 cents, G

idlewind · 11-29-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sowalgayboi

Sorry I'm just not in the mood to google for any kinds of study, but can you show me the study that says a child is better off in an orphanage or foster care for their entire lives as opposed to having at least one parent.

The scary part here is that you clearly haven't done your research. In the State of Florida a single gay man/woman could adopt kids all day long if they met the financial requirements set by the state. However, a couple in a comitted long term relationship could not.

I did not/have not said anything about what is currently legal. I have said that the studies I have seen say that the best environment for a child is one with two parents. I was in the mood to google it.

idlewind · 11-29-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo

I believe there should be no policy limiting adoption to a set number of parents but rather-
each adoption should be evaluated on a case by case basis with the welfare of the child trumping anything else.

Unfit parents should be turned down whether they are male, female, straight, gay, single, married, religious, agnostic, etc.

Fit parents should be given the opportunity to make a difference in a child's life.

2 cents, G

I do not have any problem with what you have written except to say that the first criteria should be to place the child in a two parent home. If one is unavailable then the courts should have the latitude to fit a suitable one-parent home. All cases should be evaluated case-by-case and the welfare of the child is paramount. Unfit parents of any ilk should be disqualified.

Tootsie · 11-30-2008, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterCourseWay

It makes me so sad to think that there are kids that desperately need and want to be loved, and there are people who desperately want to love them and tend to their needs, but people are so blinded by their own judgment and misconceptions that they willingly prevent the creation a loving, happy, healthy family, keeping desperate, needy people desperate and needy. Wake up, people. Remove the beams from your eyes. A loving single parent, a loving gay parent, a loving gay couple, ALL are far better than letting these poor children get lost in the system.

Can anyone claim their married, heterosexual parents were perfect? Can anyone claim they don't know at least one person who has married, heterosexual parents yet had a terrible home life growing up because their parents were just not capable of loving and caring for them properly? In my opinion, the ideal of marriage is pure, which is why it is important to me that every adult should have the opportunity to pursue it, no matter what their gender preference of a mate might be... but the reality of marriage is far from the ideal for most folks, and marriage alone provides no guarantee of good parenting.

With family and kids, all that really matters is unconditional love. If you've got that, you can sort the rest out.

all very well said WCW! thank you.

to me it just makes sense that anyone with the desire to love and raise a child, anyone willing to make that huge commitment, anyone with the necessary resources, anyone with the patience and determination to undergo the adoption process... should be able to adopt a child.

NoHall · 11-30-2008, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaterCourseWay

Can anyone claim their married, heterosexual parents were perfect?

I often do claim that...

But, then again, my mother was adopted. (I'm not even going to attempt to sort that irony out.)