NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you guys think the law in texas that forbids gay, bi, etc people from adopting children will be declared unconstitutional?

Didn't we already go through this in Florida?

No, but that's only a gut reaction, not a researched opinion.

Do you guys think the law in texas that forbids gay, bi, etc people from adopting children will be declared unconstitutional?
Even though it probably should be, I think it's unlikely. What portion of the Constitution do you think such a law would violate?

I certainly hope so. What inherent difference is there between gays and straights that could possibly justify such a law?

Even though it probably should be, I think it's unlikely. What portion of the Constitution do you think such a law would violate?

Well duh, the bit about sodomy of course. :rolleyes:

It will...when the religious right fades into the background and civil rights take the front stage again.

Here this might help.

click (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7822527.htm)

Here this might help.

click (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7822527.htm)

bah you have to register, what was it?

Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket. I hope not. The last thing we need are more queer parents perverting our youngins'.

bah you have to register, what was it?


this



FLORIDA FAMILIES

Ban on adoptions by gays upheld by U.S. appeals court

Even though Florida is the only state to prohibit gay adoptions, appellate judges say they have no right to overrule the state Legislature.

BY DAVID OVALLE

dovalle@herald.com

A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a Florida law that bars gay men and women from adopting children, maintaining Florida's distinction as the only state that bans any gay person from adopting.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with an earlier federal ruling that threw out a high-profile lawsuit filed by four gay men who said the ban violated their constitutional rights because, although they were allowed to be foster parents or guardians, they were not allowed to adopt.

''Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by'' gay people, Judge Stanley Birch wrote in the court's unanimous decision, ``and we found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment.''

The state enacted the blanket ban on adoption for gay singles and couples in 1977. It came after the Anita Bryant-fueled ''Save the Children'' anti-homosexuality campaign and the early days of the gay rights movement.

''We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate,'' Birch wrote. ``Any argument that the Florida Legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law.''

SETBACK

Wednesday's ruling is a setback for gay rights groups, which in November hailed the U.S. Supreme Court for striking down a Texas state law that banned private consensual gay sex.

The Florida case garnered headlines in 2002 when talk show host Rosie O'Donnell, a gay woman raising adopted children, went on national TV to denounce the law.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, which litigated the case for the men, said they were deeply disappointed.

''We think the court is wrong in thinking the Constitution lets the government assume that sexual orientation has anything to do with good parenting,'' ACLU attorney Matt Coles said in a statement. ``We are distressed that the court's decision will leave thousands of children without the homes and the parents they deserve.''

The attorneys said their clients will explore other legal challenges. They can ask the appeals court to reconsider the case or try taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court, an ACLU spokesman said.

Of the three judges who heard the case, Birch and Judge Ed Carnes were appointed to the bench by the first President Bush. The third, Procter Hug Jr., was appointed by Jimmy Carter.

The ruling will likely heat up an already contentious national debate, especially in Florida, a key battleground for the November presidential election.

Gay adoption also was an issue in the 2002 gubernatorial election. Republican Gov. Jeb Bush supported the law. Democratic opponent Bill McBride wanted to repeal it.

BUSH STATEMENT

''I am pleased by the ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals today,'' Bush said in a news release. ``The decision validates Florida's conclusion that it is in the best interest of adopted children, many of whom come from troubled and unstable backgrounds, to be placed in a home anchored both by a father and a mother.''

Florida does permit single straight people to adopt; gay couples can be foster parents.

The ACLU has argued the law prevents thousands of children who languish in state custody from being part of responsible families.

''There can be no justification for Florida's ban on gay adoptions other than impermissible prejudice and hostility toward gay people,'' said Howard Simon, the ACLU's Florida director.

The lawsuit was filed in 1999 by Steven Lofton of Portland, Ore.; Douglas Houghton of Miami, and Wayne Smith and Daniel Skahen of Key West. All of them are foster parents or guardians.

The suit was thrown out in 2001 by U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King.

The four men could not be reached Wednesday night.

Lofton told The Herald in March 2003 that he took home an HIV-positive infant in 1991 because no one else wanted him as a foster child.

The former Miami Beach resident, who now lives in Oregon with his partner and the boy, called the Florida law ``discriminatory and hateful.''

The Key West couple have two foster children, and Houghton, a trauma nurse at Jackson Memorial Hospital, cares for a boy.

They have wanted to make their ties with the children more permanent because adopted children enjoy greater legal rights, including being the next-of-kin and receiving insurance coverage.

Because of the law, some gay men in Florida have resorted to establishing homes in other states. Kevin Burns, who lives in North Miami, bought a home with his partner in Vermont so they could legally adopt a 2-year-old girl.

''I didn't want someone in the Florida Legislature to dictate whether I was a capable parent based upon their preconceived notion,'' Burns said.


The case is:

Lofton v. Sec. Dept. of Children and Family
01-16723; 99-10058-CV-JLK; 07-21-2004

*sigh*......I don't understand why so many people dislike gays...it...really just...boggles me.

I really hope this gets overturned. It's ridiculous: there are thousands of children languishing in foster care, and here we are denying them a shot at being adopted into a safe and loving home? Despicable.
Eventually, I think someone will see this as a violation of the 14th Amend.

Eventually, I think someone will see this as a violation of the 14th Amend.
Explain, please.

Explain, please.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And I believe, although im not sure, that when it says due process by law it means like criminals.

Explain, please.


The 14th Amendment says that all citizens have to be treated equally under the law and that no one can be deprived of their rihgts without due process of law. Basically the government has to show a compelling reason for the betterment of society to deprive someone of equality. Bias is not a compelling reason.

I think it's unconstitutional.

However, with all the idiot rednecks and the religious right following Bush in his homophobic rampage, anything is possible.

I think it's unconstitutional.

However, with all the idiot rednecks and the religious right following Bush in his homophobic rampage, anything is possible.


If you'll notice, Bush has rather backed off the issue since he got reelected (okay not totally, but enough to be noticeable). Evidently the lives of real people are just political pawns in our lawmakers hands. Le sigh.

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan:

"Yes'n how many years must some people exist...before they're allowed to be free?"

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan:

"Yes'n how many years must some people exist...before they're allowed to be free?"


I believe that was Joan Baez. . . .

I'm assuming you've never heard the song "Blowin' in the Wind" by Bob Dylan...

I'm assuming you've never heard the song "Blowin' in the Wind" by Bob Dylan...

That song has been sung by every folk singer out there. I'm not even sure if anyone knows who did it originally at this point.

I'm assuming you've never heard the song "Blowin' in the Wind" by Bob Dylan...

I've heard the song Blowin in the Wind (Land of a 1000 Dances I believe is its proper name) but it certainly wasn't done by Dylan--or a man for that matter. However, I just googled it and you're right. My whole worldview was just shaken :)

Kudos!

it'll take a looooooong time, if/when it ever happens here.

it'll take a looooooong time, if/when it ever happens here.

It won't surprise me if it happens sooner than you might think. The 9th (at least I think its the 9th) and the 14th Amendments are really wonderful things for guaranteeing equal treatment under the laws.

The 14th Amendment says that all citizens have to be treated equally under the law and that no one can be deprived of their rihgts without due process of law. Basically the government has to show a compelling reason for the betterment of society to deprive someone of equality. Bias is not a compelling reason.
Compelling is actually a word that has a lot of meaning in the law, that would be a very hard burden for the state to overcome. A law that singles out gays for unequal treatment ussually only must be shown to be rationally related to a legitimate goal of the state under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. I don't know how rational the law is, but I would guess it survives.

It won't surprise me if it happens sooner than you might think. The 9th (at least I think its the 9th) and the 14th Amendments are really wonderful things for guaranteeing equal treatment under the laws.
You are right, but do remeber: This is Texas we're talking about. Though if they keep this up the only thing that will come from Texas are steers, and no one wants that.

Okies... unconstitutionalness...

Well, in WA's (my) state's constitution or the US there's something about not giving special previledges and rights to certain groups simply based on their being in that group. And that applies to sexual orientation. So it's definitely unconstitutional in our state (although it's legal, anyway), and it's also unconstitutional to ban gay marriage. Plus it's going to court in the state. (Yay for Connor, an english teacher at my school who's one of the ones presenting the case!) And, under the US constitution, the liscense must be recognized, so if they win, it's probably going to go all the way to the US supreme court! I'm really excited. ^_^

Compelling is actually a word that has a lot of meaning in the law, that would be a very hard burden for the state to overcome. A law that singles out gays for unequal treatment ussually only must be shown to be rationally related to a legitimate goal of the state under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. I don't know how rational the law is, but I would guess it survives.

Compelling means that the state has to show that there is a public interest in denying gays equality. That cannot be done. Reputable science has already shown that children raised by same sex parents function just as well as kids in hetero households and that they are no more likely to be gay than members of the general population.

Then there is my favorite argument--"But they might be bullied in school!"

To which I always respond with this quote from The Ark:

And you're totally fucked in the head,
If you were serious right when you said,
That's its because they will be bullied in school,
'cause that means you let the bullies set the rules . . . .

You are right, but do remeber: This is Texas we're talking about. Though if they keep this up the only thing that will come from Texas are steers, and no one wants that.


It is Texas, but its the federal consitution that is being violated which means taht the federal courts can hear the case. If we get it out of the circuit serving Florida, we have a chance that fairness will win the day.

Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to adopt children?

Does anyone actually understand the job of the courts?

Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to adopt children?

Does anyone actually understand the job of the courts?
Well, there's a very important little clause in there that says that just because the right isn't included in the constitution, doesn't mean you don't get it. They couldn't possibly squeeze in every single little right you're allowed, now could they?

Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to adopt children?

Does anyone actually understand the job of the courts?

Where does it say you have the right to drive a car? Or laugh?

Rights do not have to be explicitly stated to be protected by the Consitution.

Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Further, the Consitution explicitly guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens of the nation:

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

The only way to prevent gays from adopting is to show that there is a compelling reason for the benefit of society to do so--and to provide evidence to support that such that it would hold up in a court of law. To date that evidence has not been provided. Further, all the major organizations that deal with children/development (APA, AMA, APedA, the Social Workers Association) support gay adoption because the kids turn out just fine.

As for the courts--their job is defined by Article III Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This was modified slightly by Amendment XI:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Basically the court hears cases and interprets what should happen based upon the law. If a law is in question, then the court must determine if that law is valid under the higher levels of law--with the Constution being the highest level and International Treaties the next highest. The only cases that a court truly cannot hear are those were the suit is brought against a state by citizens living in another state or country--ie I live in Mississippi, therefore I cannot sue Alabama unless I first move there.

Where does it say you have the right to drive a car? Or laugh?

Rights do not have to be explicitly stated to be protected by the Consitution.

Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Further, the Consitution explicitly guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens of the nation:

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

The only way to prevent gays from adopting is to show that there is a compelling reason for the benefit of society to do so--and to provide evidence to support that such that it would hold up in a court of law. To date that evidence has not been provided. Further, all the major organizations that deal with children/development (APA, AMA, APedA, the Social Workers Association) support gay adoption because the kids turn out just fine.

As for the courts--their job is defined by Article III Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This was modified slightly by Amendment XI:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Basically the court hears cases and interprets what should happen based upon the law. If a law is in question, then the court must determine if that law is valid under the higher levels of law--with the Constution being the highest level and International Treaties the next highest. The only cases that a court truly cannot hear are those were the suit is brought against a state by citizens living in another state or country--ie I live in Mississippi, therefore I cannot sue Alabama unless I first move there.
Oh god, thank you. I've been paging through the constitution the whole time trying to find those bits. Can't ever remember where the damn things are. :headbang:

Oh god, thank you. I've been paging through the constitution the whole time trying to find those bits. Can't ever remember where the damn things are. :headbang:

Glad to be of service. It's odd, I've learned more about the Consitution and the laws of the US in the less than a year I've been on these board than I did all through junior high and high school. Maybe if you actually had to read the darned thing instead of just having teachers tell you that we're a Christian nation were majority always rules people would have more sense.

Glad to be of service. It's odd, I've learned more about the Consitution and the laws of the US in the less than a year I've been on these board than I did all through junior high and high school. Maybe if you actually had to read the darned thing instead of just having teachers tell you that we're a Christian nation were majority always rules people would have more sense.
Oh jeez, they said that? That's... that's... they need to be fired! 'Course we're heading that way now with the faith being mixed in with politics and the whole fillibuster issue... gah I can't believe they're even considering it...

But I had to read through the whole thing, and we got it explained in detail over about 5 class periods, and I still can't remember where anything is. :/

Where does it say you have the right to drive a car? Or laugh?

Rights do not have to be explicitly stated to be protected by the Consitution.



To you and the poster before you;

The courts job is to uphold the constitution, therefor, if it isn't mentioned, it's not part of their job. This is my point. Take it up with your legislature.

Oh jeez, they said that? That's... that's... they need to be fired! 'Course we're heading that way now with the faith being mixed in with politics and the whole fillibuster issue... gah I can't believe they're even considering it...


But it's ok for them to say 9-11 was America's fault?

To you and the poster before you;

The courts job is to uphold the constitution, therefor, if it isn't mentioned, it's not part of their job. This is my point. Take it up with your legislature.
If the rights are given to some and not others, it sure as hell is. Their job is to interpret the laws. And if they can't interpret this as wrong, we have a serious fixer-upper of a judicial system to deal with.

But it's ok for them to say 9-11 was America's fault?
I have no idea where that came from. :confused:

But anyway, that statement is based on opinion, the one about the constitution saying that the country is a Christian-centered society where the majority always rules is completly false. It can't be argued reasonably. The statement you made can. Not saying I agree with it, but it can.

But I seriously don't know where that reply came from. o.0

To you and the poster before you;

The courts job is to uphold the constitution, therefor, if it isn't mentioned, it's not part of their job. This is my point. Take it up with your legislature.
The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. This law is clearly discriminatory and unequal and as such it does fall under the purview of the courts.

But it's ok for them to say 9-11 was America's fault?
That was a tenured college proffesor, not a public middle school teacher. Quite different situations.

Compelling means that the state has to show that there is a public interest in denying gays equality. That cannot be done. Reputable science has already shown that children raised by same sex parents function just as well as kids in hetero households and that they are no more likely to be gay than members of the general population.

I believe the courts have generally held that only a rational basis is necessary in gender issues, unfortunately.

Eventually, I think they will move to the compelling interest test, and then there is no way it will stand.

To you and the poster before you;

The courts job is to uphold the constitution, therefor, if it isn't mentioned, it's not part of their job. This is my point. Take it up with your legislature.

Read my point about it not having to be explicitly stated to be protected by the Constitution. Oh wait, you didn't want to do that because it might mean you have tolerate that which is different.

But it's ok for them to say 9-11 was America's fault?

How did you arrive at that? Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.

I believe the courts have generally held that only a rational basis is necessary in gender issues, unfortunately.

Eventually, I think they will move to the compelling interest test, and then there is no way it will stand.


It's irrational to say that gays are going to be bad parents when the overwhelming majority of studies in child development in that area, as well as the overwhelming opinion of child development professionals is to the contrary.

Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket. I hope not. The last thing we need are more queer parents perverting our youngins'.
It's for protection from bigotry like this that there is a constitution in the first place!

As for the topic: I don't know, due to insufficient knowledge of US Law.

Where does it say you have the right to drive a car? Or laugh?
Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. And the right to laugh is probably protected by the 1st amendment.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. And the right to laugh is probably protected by the 1st amendment.

But its not explicitly stated--so obviously its not guaranteed. It's the same thing as the right to adopt and raise children. I see you didn't comment on the rest of my arguement about the actual wording of the Constitutional Amendments that require equality for all citizens--so I can't be sure if I need to argue with you or if we are just discussing semantics here.

The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. This law is clearly discriminatory and unequal and as such it does fall under the purview of the courts.

No, because it's not saying that women can't adopt or men can't adopt. It's not saying that you can't adopt if you're black or white or green or whatever, and it's not saying you can't adopt if you're gay. It's saying you can't adopt if you live in a same-sex enviroment. That means that no one in such an enviroment can adopt. Therefor, it's not against the equal protection clause.

Read my point about it not having to be explicitly stated to be protected by the Constitution. Oh wait, you didn't want to do that because it might mean you have tolerate that which is different.

And read my post about how the courts have no jurisdiction over rights not guarenteed in the constitution. The rights are reserved for state legislatures!

How did you arrive at that? Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.

I'm an American college student. I pay $15,000 a year to listen to that crap from every teacher. You're damn right I have a chip on my shoulder!

No, because it's not saying that women can't adopt or men can't adopt. It's not saying that you can't adopt if you're black or white or green or whatever, and it's not saying you can't adopt if you're gay. It's saying you can't adopt if you live in a same-sex enviroment. That means that no one in such an enviroment can adopt. Therefor, it's not against the equal protection clause.


That was the same arguement used to ban interracial marriages. Since whites cannot marry blacks, its not disciminatory they said. Too bad the courts didn't agree--they found that anything that keeps people apart is inherantely disciminatory and that marriage to the person of your own choosing was a basic human right protected by the 14th Amendment. Adopting is in the same vein--everyone has the right to raise children, indeed homosexuals can and often do find surrogates or sperm donors and raise children. The only way you can deny that right is to show that society or the child will be harmed by gays being parents, and frankly its been shown to be to the contrary.

And read my post about how the courts have no jurisdiction over rights not guarenteed in the constitution. The rights are reserved for state legislatures!


You have made no such post. And I repeat for the FINAL time, rights do not specifically have to be enumerated by the Consitution to be protected by it--read Amendment IX. It makes no reference to the state legislatures. I imagine that you are probably referring to Article II (I believe) that says that the powers not granted the federal legislature are granted to the states or to the people. That has nothing to do with the power of the courts to hear cases challenging the actions of the states (or indeed of the people) that are contrary to the Constitution.

And again, I reiterate Amendment XIV--ALL citizens are to be treated equally under the law and to not have their rights or privledges abridged without due process. The government cannot treat gays different from straights without true due process, regardless of what small minded people wish was otherwise.

I'm an American college student. I pay $15,000 a year to listen to that crap from every teacher. You're damn right I have a chip on my shoulder!


A. I doubt its every teacher.
B. I was a college student and paid a lot more than that to hear things from teachers that I didn't agree with. You aren't paying teachers to tell you what to hear--you are paying them to teach you things and to stimulate your mind. You don't have to agree with them--indeed if you agreed with them on everything I would greatly pity you for being mindless. However, let them challenge your beliefs, see if they are worth keeping. In the end you will be better off becaues you will either discard them for what you will feel are better ones OR you will keep them and have them be that much stronger and more secure.

A. I doubt its every teacher.
B. I was a college student and paid a lot more than that to hear things from teachers that I didn't agree with. You aren't paying teachers to tell you what to hear--you are paying them to teach you things and to stimulate your mind. You don't have to agree with them--indeed if you agreed with them on everything I would greatly pity you for being mindless. However, let them challenge your beliefs, see if they are worth keeping. In the end you will be better off becaues you will either discard them for what you will feel are better ones OR you will keep them and have them be that much stronger and more secure.

A. Almost every teacher.
B. It's one thing to spark debate, it's another thing to shut down all dissenting opinions and give a lower grade to those who clashed with their beliefs

A. Almost every teacher.
B. It's one thing to spark debate, it's another thing to shut down all dissenting opinions and give a lower grade to those who clashed with their beliefs


If they do that its wrong. But again, I find it hard to believe its even "almost every teacher." Rather, I find this more likely to be youthful hyperbole and over-sensitivity. I am very familiar with it as I still employ it quite frequently.

That was the same arguement used to ban interracial marriages. Since whites cannot marry blacks, its not disciminatory they said. Too bad the courts didn't agree--they found that anything that keeps people apart is inherantely disciminatory and that marriage to the person of your own choosing was a basic human right protected by the 14th Amendment. Adopting is in the same vein--everyone has the right to raise children, indeed homosexuals can and often do find surrogates or sperm donors and raise children. The only way you can deny that right is to show that society or the child will be harmed by gays being parents, and frankly its been shown to be to the contrary.

No. If you are strieght, but living in a house with another strieght man and no one else, and the child would be raised in that single-sex enviroment, then you can't adopt the child. That's not discriminating. If a lesbian couple can get a sperm donor, then the courts have no power to decide the fate of that child, it's their child.

If they do that its wrong. But again, I find it hard to believe its even "almost every teacher." Rather, I find this more likely to be youthful hyperbole and over-sensitivity. I am very familiar with it as I still employ it quite frequently.

Of my five teachers this semester, three come right out and say their political opinions and disallow any conflicting views, one doesn't say anything about it, and one does it so subtly you don't even know you're being indoctrinated.

Of my five teachers this semester, three come right out and say their political opinions and disallow any conflicting views, one doesn't say anything about it, and one does it so subtly you don't even know you're being indoctrinated.


you know what, we've wandered off topic--but thanks for the giggle at your expense.

Well, I hardly think it was a giggle at my expense, but yes, we've wondered too far

Here's a round up... The gay rights movement has been trying to get at least one state to allow same sex marriage, the idea being then that other states will be forced to recognize those marriage via the supreme court and federal laws regarding inter-state commerce and legalities,

But, that all changes if ALL of the states end up changing their state constitutions. At the rate it's going now, more states than not, will have amended their constitutions, making it impossible for it to be unconstitutional when it IS the constitution.

Now, child adoption. While the above is taking place, and a clear winner is not yet foreseeable, the non-gay adoption only clause could be labeled, married couples only, and since gays won't be able to marry (see above) they wont be able to adopt. And it's easy to prove that children in two parent households are better off than children in single parent households, therefore the single parents adoption rule protects the child, not the rights of the wannabe adoptive parents.

My guess is, the gay rights movement needs to take a few months off, they pissed too many states off at once, as shown by last November’s amendment changing stampede in what, eight states on the same day? If they don't back off a bit and let things quiet down, I think the tide might be turning against them, something I didn't foresee as possible two years ago,

If you change the constitutions, and the supreme courts wants to overrule the state constitutions, it only takes 70% of the states to agree to amend the federal constitution and voila, the supreme court as no ground to base an over-ruling on.

Here's a round up... The gay rights movement has been trying to get at least one state to allow same sex marriage, the idea being then that other states will be forced to recognize those marriage via the supreme court and federal laws regarding inter-state commerce and legalities,

But, that all changes if ALL of the states end up changing their state constitutions. At the rate it's going now, more states than not, will have amended their constitutions, making it impossible for it to be unconstitutional when it IS the constitution.

Now, child adoption. While the above is taking place, and a clear winner is not yet foreseeable, the non-gay adoption only clause could be labeled, married couples only, and since gays won't be able to marry (see above) they wont be able to adopt. And it's easy to prove that children in two parent households are better off than children in single parent households, therefore the single parents adoption rule protects the child, not the rights of the wannabe adoptive parents.

My guess is, the gay rights movement needs to take a few months off, they pissed too many states off at once, as shown by last November’s amendment changing stampede in what, eight states on the same day? If they don't back off a bit and let things quiet down, I think the tide might be turning against them, something I didn't foresee as possible two years ago,

If you change the constitutions, and the supreme courts wants to overrule the state constitutions, it only takes 70% of the states to agree to amend the federal constitution and voila, the supreme court as no ground to base an over-ruling on.

I tend to agree. They should start with the dozen or so states where persons can be fired on the grounds of sexual orientation. Heck, if you can't hold a job, being married won't be too easy... unless you are a white toothless mobile home resident. God bleph America. :D

Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to adopt children?

Does anyone actually understand the job of the courts?

Amendment IX...The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Along with Amendment X, they are the "catch alls".... you see, The US does not operate under what is known as "Civil" or "Roman" law... It runs on what is known as Common Law... specifically descended from the 1750's Common Law of England... Unlike under the Civil law (as used throughout most of Europe) not the entire "law" is codified... the codification (state/federal code) is considered to be the codification of the prinicples of espoused in the Common Law... The purpose of the Supreme Court, and lower Courts, is to weigh state and federal laws by the Constitution (which is the foundational principles of the Common Law of the land)... And make ruling based upon that. Which is why the courts have the power in this country of overturning legislation made through the Federal Congress or lower state legislatures.. Because the codification does not match the principles espoused through the Constitution... See, the courts don't need actual "writen law" to enforce, like they do under the Civil system... They can appeal to the ideas expressed in the ex scriptura (un-written) law for their rullings... Amendment IX and X are part of the appeal to the "unwritten law".

Merely because you are ignorant of how the US system of government and courts work, does not give you license to accuse others of being ignorant of it.

it is my understanding (probably gotten from the daily show) that this law also requires investigating the sexuality of ALL foster parents, adopters, etc. after all people sometimes lie about their orientation and if not investigated some gay guy might end up giving a loving home to a child in need.

seems to ME that this will have a chilling effect on foster parents in general. who wants the state peeping in their bedroom windows??

there is some chance it could be overturned by the US supreme court. after all that sodomy law was. it maybe could be overturned by the texas courts. who knows.

all i know is that its sad to doom children to institutions when there is a loving home for them to go to.

Do you guys think the law in texas that forbids gay, bi, etc people from adopting children will be declared unconstitutional?It ought to be (14th amendment) but it won't. If anything, the government will try to outlaw it everywhere else, too. That's the problem with America today: it's far too conservative.

Just look at all the following:
Low Political Freedom — Smith Act, Kuhlmeier et al. v. Hazelwood, and the Patriot Act

Low Civil Rights — Do you know how long it took Americans to get equality for everyone? Whenever one group gets equal rights, they go pick on another one. First it was women, then Catholics, then African Americans, and now gays. What next? Foreigners? Oh wait, they picked on those too.

Low Economic Freedoms — Bush's "tax cuts" were only so for the rich and the opposite for the middle class. And he's trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid.

And we still call it a democracy? This issue reminds me of one of those stupid but scary laws in Tennessee:
In Tennessee no one shall be elected to a public office if he does not acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it is my understanding (probably gotten from the daily show) that this law also requires investigating the sexuality of ALL foster parents, adopters, etc. after all people sometimes lie about their orientation and if not investigated some gay guy might end up giving a loving home to a child in need.

seems to ME that this will have a chilling effect on foster parents in general. who wants the state peeping in their bedroom windows??

there is some chance it could be overturned by the US supreme court. after all that sodomy law was. it maybe could be overturned by the texas courts. who knows.

all i know is that its sad to doom children to institutions when there is a loving home for them to go to.America is deteriorating. :headbang:

Sure, why not? What with Mr George "God wanted me to be President" Bush. Hell, maybe he'll make the lives of everyone in the United States of North America state property and introduce tracking chips installed at birth. And, if you don't have a tracking chip, you're obviously a terrorist! Oh and if you attempt to resist government intervention of any kind you're a terrorist! Oh and also if you happen to be a citizen of a foreign country and are resisting invasion, you're definately a terrorist!

Of my five teachers this semester, three come right out and say their political opinions and disallow any conflicting views, one doesn't say anything about it, and one does it so subtly you don't even know you're being indoctrinated.
If you can't help being indocrinated; that's pitiful.

I believe that this law against gays being legally bound to another, or being allowed to adopt children is right. They will grow up in a bad atmosphere and be ridiculed where ever they go so they should be free from homosexual parents!

k...lets first look at the hierarchy of the laws of the US:

US Constitution
International treties and law (Universal human rights of the UN, etc.)
federal law
state constitution
state law
municipal charter
municipal law


now, lets look at the gay marriage issue first. San Francisco legalized gay marriage. This was municipal law. Under state law, it was illegal. Therefore, the law change by the city did not matter.

The adoption issue is similar. If the state makes a law against some group, it can be negated on 4 different levels: state constitution, federal law, international law, and us constitution. It is the job of the federal court system to determine if these laws (depending on what level of federal court it is being heard on) violate these higher laws. Let us say that the case makes it to the supreme court (as it most likely will). Article II (I think) has been mentioned in here, which states that that which is not directly stated in the constitution is a state right. This does not apply here. What that article refers to is the powers and responsibilites of congress, not the issue of rights. The federal courts will (most likely) hear this case. Hopefully, it will be struck down, as it does not allow all US citizens the same right. The issue does not have to be based on race or ethnicity. Lets say my town passed a law saying that I could not adopt a child. They would have to prove that I was an unfit parent in order for this law to be upheld. It is the same concept. If any individual or group is not given equal rights, then the law is unconstitutional.

As for the states that have amended their constitution against gay marriage, these amendments can be struck down. No law on any level can contradict the constitution. Therefore, if the federal courts determine that a gay marriage law is unconstitutional, these amendments will become null and void.






lets just hope that one day, people will accept others for who they are.

lets just hope that one day, people will accept others for who they are.
Yeah I myself am pretty much stumped as to why Americans vote against gay marriage. They say it's not about homophobia, but about the way society is. But how does gay marriage affect society? And if they are afraid of how gays can affect society isn't that homophobia anyway?

this





The case is:

Lofton v. Sec. Dept. of Children and Family
01-16723; 99-10058-CV-JLK; 07-21-2004

I could have sworn Georgia had banned gay adoption, but whatever.

Anyway, I don't think it's right but I haven't seen any compelling reason why this is unconstitutional. In fact, one could say the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to regulate child adoption as they wish.

Anyway, I don't think it's right but I haven't seen any compelling reason why this is unconstitutional. In fact, one could say the 10th Amendment gives the states the right to regulate child adoption as they wish.


what crime have they commited?

being gay?

is that a crime?

they are having their right to raise a child taken away.

the 14th amendment clearly states that rights cannot be removed without a court trial, and them proven guilty of a crime

rights being removed without a sentence = unconstitutional

I believe that this law against gays being legally bound to another, or being allowed to adopt children is right. They will grow up in a bad atmosphere and be ridiculed where ever they go so they should be free from homosexual parents!

To this I cite The Ark:

"And you're totally fucked in the head,
If you were serious right now when you said,
That's its because they will be bullied in school,
'cause that means you let the bullies set the rules."

All kids are bullied. Do we take kids away from Jewish parents in predominantely Christian communities because they might be bullied? Do we take them away from white parents in Asian communities? No. Letting bullies decide equality is simply stupid.

Of my five teachers this semester, three come right out and say their political opinions and disallow any conflicting views, one doesn't say anything about it, and one does it so subtly you don't even know you're being indoctrinated.
Out of the seven I have, two are liberal, but withhold their views (or rather, don't force them upon people, they generally propose a question, let the class argue it and play devils advocate), one's a rabid conservative and often gets into arguements with students (but that's the point of the class and she doesn't dock anyone for it, or else I'd be screwed), one's fairly liberal but we don't talk about liberal things in her class, two are self declared independants (in between Dems and Reps, not commies or greens), and one is a conservative who pretty much keeps his political ideals to himself.

Yeah I myself am pretty much stumped as to why Americans vote against gay marriage. They say it's not about homophobia, but about the way society is. But how does gay marriage affect society? And if they are afraid of how gays can affect society isn't that homophobia anyway?


I don't get America/Americans, and I live here (not to say I don't love it here...there are just some people/policies...) But anyway...America claims that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman...but if you look across all cultures, most practice polygyny, then heterosexual monogamy (or in the case of the US serial heterosexual monogamy), then polyandry...so if you go by that, marriage should be defined as marriage between a man and many women. Yet polygamy is illegal in the US. I don't know how gay marriage would affect society, or if it would...but I can say that heterosexuals have done a pretty damn good job at messing up the institution...I mean, look at the divorce rate. Half of all marriages will fail. Look at TV, where the FOX network ran "married by america" (I think it was FOX, could be wrong). How much lower can you get than having other people call in and choose your wife without you knowing her?

If the Supreme Court stays conservative that's where the ultimate choice will lay. Frankly, unless someone can establish that homosexuality is 100% genetic and not a psychological disorder or congenital defect there isn't much hope here, at least not for 20 or so years.

If the Supreme Court stays conservative that's where the ultimate choice will lay. Frankly, unless someone can establish that homosexuality is 100% genetic and not a psychological disorder or congenital defect there isn't much hope here, at least not for 20 or so years.


While it hasn't been estalibhsed to be 100% genetic (nothing is 100% genetic, even genetic disorders--there are people who should have sickle cell and don't).

As for a psychological disorder, it hasn't been held to be so by psychological and medical experts since the mid (or maybe late) 1970s. And its only a defect if it causes harm to the individual--which it doesn't. And even if it were, why is that a reason to deny someone that right to marry the person they wish? "Oh, I'm sorry you were born with amniotic bands that disfigured all your extremities, but you can't get married because its a congenital anomaly."

My apologies if this seems viscious or attacking, I realize you are making a point and seem to be on my side. I'm just clarifying why its not particularly valid when held up to logic and actual science.

It's irrational to say that gays are going to be bad parents when the overwhelming majority of studies in child development in that area, as well as the overwhelming opinion of child development professionals is to the contrary.

(a) That may or may not be their argument. My guess is that they simply use a "non-traditional" family and the fact that most places don't allow single parents, etc. to adopt either.

(b) "Rational basis" has a different meaning to the courts than it does to a layperson. I've heard arguments that passed the courts under "rational basis" that made no rational sense whatsoever to me.

A. Almost every teacher.
B. It's one thing to spark debate, it's another thing to shut down all dissenting opinions and give a lower grade to those who clashed with their beliefs

In my experience, the people who complain that they get a lower grade because of a dissenting opinion, in fact, simply do not properly support their opinion. Every time I have heard a student say that about a prof. I have had, I have disagreed with the prof, supported my opinion, and gotten a high grade. Go figure.

Here's a round up... The gay rights movement has been trying to get at least one state to allow same sex marriage, the idea being then that other states will be forced to recognize those marriage via the supreme court and federal laws regarding inter-state commerce and legalities,

But, that all changes if ALL of the states end up changing their state constitutions. At the rate it's going now, more states than not, will have amended their constitutions, making it impossible for it to be unconstitutional when it IS the constitution.

State constitutions do not overried the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. In addition, nothing in state constitutions can (as every one of these amendments do) contradict the 14th Amendment.

Meanwhile, it is a select few states that are actually pushing for amendments. In several of them, like GA, all or part of the amendments may fall due to unethical practices on the part of the legislature. ]

I believe that this law against gays being legally bound to another, or being allowed to adopt children is right. They will grow up in a bad atmosphere and be ridiculed where ever they go so they should be free from homosexual parents!

A loving family = a bad atmosphere?

I suppose you would rather these children grow up unloved and be ridiculedfor being unwanted and having no parents? Yeah, that's a better situation altogether.

Do you guys think the law in texas that forbids gay, bi, etc people from adopting children will be declared unconstitutional?
I hope so.

A loving family = a bad atmosphere?

I suppose you would rather these children grow up unloved and be ridiculedfor being unwanted and having no parents? Yeah, that's a better situation altogether.
Didn't you know, us gays/lesbians/bisexuals are evil, evil people and will amke the child unnatural.

Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to adopt children?

Does anyone actually understand the job of the courts?

Perhaps it is you that does not understand the job of the courts.

Courts decide cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and the laws of the land.

Deciding cases sometimes necessitates interpreting the Constitution and/or the applicable laws.

Moreoever, when a law conflicts with the Constitution, the courts must declare the law null and void. This is the power of judicial review.

You might try reading Marbury v. Madison (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/5/137.html), 5 US 137 (1803).

As to your other question, the Constitution protects many unenumerated rights. The Ninth Amendment expressly contemplates this. Moreover, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protects varies rights that are fundamental to "liberty" -- as explained in this quote from the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist and joined by Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas (emphasis added):

The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the "liberty" it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992) (Due Process Clause "protects individual liberty against `certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them' ") (quoting Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986)). The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301 -302 (1993); Casey, 505 U.S., at 851 . In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the "liberty" specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the rights to marry, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); to have children, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); to marital privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); to use contraception, ibid; Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); to bodily integrity, Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), and to abortion, Casey, supra. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Cruzan, 497 U.S., at 278 -279.

-- Washington v. Glucksberg (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/96-110.html), 521 U.S.702 (1997).

Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:

the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud
the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens
the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime
the right to travel within the United States
the right to marry or not to marry
the right to make one's own choice about having children
the right to have children at all
the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)
the right to custody of one's children
the right to choose and follow a profession
right to bodily integrity


Do you really wish to insist that none of these are protected by the Constitution?

It ought to be (14th amendment) but it won't. If anything, the government will try to outlaw it everywhere else, too. That's the problem with America today: it's far too conservative.

Just look at all the following:
Low Political Freedom — Smith Act, Kuhlmeier et al. v. Hazelwood, and the Patriot Act

Low Civil Rights — Do you know how long it took Americans to get equality for everyone? Whenever one group gets equal rights, they go pick on another one. First it was women, then Catholics, then African Americans, and now gays. What next? Foreigners? Oh wait, they picked on those too.

Low Economic Freedoms — Bush's "tax cuts" were only so for the rich and the opposite for the middle class. And he's trying to cut Medicare and Medicaid.

And we still call it a democracy? This issue reminds me of one of those stupid but scary laws in Tennessee:


FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Hmm.. United States...Psychotic Dictatorship? :eek:

(b) "Rational basis" has a different meaning to the courts than it does to a layperson. I've heard arguments that passed the courts under "rational basis" that made no rational sense whatsoever to me.

Correct.

When scrutinizing a law under the Equal Protection Clause, the courts apply different levels of scrutiny. Laws that make distinctions based on race, for example, are given "strict" scrutiny -- they must be justified by a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored to further that interest.

Laws that do not belong to a suspect category are subject merely to rational review. Almost no laws fail this test -- in part, because the courts largely defer to the legislative's branches identification of a state interest. The law must merely be rationally related to furtherance of that interest.

A major victory in the battle in fighting discrimination against homosexuals will be convincing the courts to look at such laws under strict (or at least stricter) scrutiny. One tactic has been to attack such laws as discriminating on the basis of gender. (Because they prohibit two men from getting married or adopting, but not a man and a woman.)

As for a psychological disorder, it hasn't been held to be so by psychological and medical experts since the mid (or maybe late) 1970s. And its only a defect if it causes harm to the individual--which it doesn't. And even if it were, why is that a reason to deny someone that right to marry the person they wish? "Oh, I'm sorry you were born with amniotic bands that disfigured all your extremities, but you can't get married because its a congenital anomaly."



This is a trenchant point, and I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle. Nice going, Pracus. :)

Speaking of genetic anomalies, we see gender-based genetic/chromasomal anomolies all the time, from women with facial hair to hermaphrodites. Coding gets screwed. But a woman attracted to a woman, a man to a man? No way is that anything but a choice! sayeth the conservatives.

To me, that blatant disconnect reveals anti-gay sentiment for what it is: Biblically-based, and based on that fact that it's "gross" to a lot of straight people. Nothing else.

Someone beat me to it, but if this Texas case gets to the US Supreme Court, and it the same court it has been for the last couple of years, it may well get struck down, as did the sodomy law.

Even with all the anti-gay statutes being passed state by state, I feel cautiously optimistic about the future. We were a lot more progressive in 1850 than 1750, more progressive in 1950 than 1850, and more progressive today than in 1950. The problem is, we don't get to live decade by decade, we have to live day by day, and that's where the setbacks become visible. I just hope my country, the United States, reverses course sooner than later.

P.S. I apologize if I've offended anyone with my lazy wording ("anomalies" "coding gets screwed")

No. If you are strieght, but living in a house with another strieght man and no one else, and the child would be raised in that single-sex enviroment, then you can't adopt the child. That's not discriminating. If a lesbian couple can get a sperm donor, then the courts have no power to decide the fate of that child, it's their child.

Though I'm not that knowledgable about the Florida law, in most states is perfectly legal for a single person to adopt a child.

And to the person quoting the Tenessee law about having to believe in a supreme being to hold public office, Texas has the same law.

what crime have they commited?

being gay?

is that a crime?

they are having their right to raise a child taken away.

the 14th amendment clearly states that rights cannot be removed without a court trial, and them proven guilty of a crime

rights being removed without a sentence = unconstitutional

As much as I agree with the sentiment, that is not a correct reading of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment carries two relevant protections: (1) the Equal Protection Clause -- which provides that all are entitled to equal protection under the laws and (2) the Due Process Clause -- which protects against deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Due Process Clause obviously does not mean that no law can be passed unless everyone subject to it has been convicted of a crime. Think taxes.

Legislative due process can be due process.

But the Due Process Clause has been held to protect substantive rights that must be afforded special protection. These are fundamental liberties and are protected by strict scrutiny.

That is the best I can explain it at this hour in this format.

If you can't help being indocrinated; that's pitiful.

Remember very clearly that most people my age are gulible idiots

Remember very clearly that most people my age are gulible idiots

Then they shouldn't be in higher education.

Remember very clearly that most people my age are gulible idiots

As I recall it, most people in higher education are arrogant self-absorbed jackasses with heads too big to accept the possibility that they might be wrong about anything, and instead blame their professors when they don't measure up to standards. Of course, that's just my experience.

It better not be declared unconstitutional, because it's not. There's an unknown, widely ignored part of the constitution known as the 10th Amendment.

It better not be declared unconstitutional, because it's not. There's an unknown, widely ignored part of the constitution known as the 10th Amendment.
Overruled by the 14th. Constitution trumps state law any day.

Overruled by the 14th. Constitution trumps state law any day.

In other words, the states can do what they want as long as they treat everyone equally under the law and do not remove an individual's rights without due process.