Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
[Editor's Note: For up-to-date information on the fast-changing issue of same-sex marriage and adoption, please visit http://www.ljnonline.com/alm?map and click on the interactive map.]
On Jan. 28, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's right to prohibit gay men and lesbians from adopting children. Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services, 01-17623. In a ruling written by Judge Stanley Birch, the court turned down a challenge to the 1977 law filed by four gay men seeking to adopt the children they are raising.
The law was enacted at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign decades ago, and has withstood several challenges in state court. The decision comes as states react to court rulings favoring gay marriage and a Supreme Court decision in June striking down laws criminalizing gay sex.
Florida argued the state has a right to legislate its “moral disapproval of homosexuality” and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development. In court filings, the state had said it prefers to place children in homes with both mothers and fathers, stabilized by long-term marriage. “In such homes, children have the best chance to develop optimally, due to the vital role dual-gender parenting plays in shaping sexual and gender identity and in providing heterosexual role modeling,” the state said.
The Defendants' Argument
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the gay couples, argued that Florida has allowed couples with drug and alcohol problems or histories of domestic violence to adopt children. Florida judges also allow some gay couples to become a child's permanent legal guardians, the group noted. “Given the state's frank acknowledgment that lesbians and gay men pose no risk of harm to children, and its willingness to place children with lesbians and gay men permanently, it is impossible to credit the idea that the ban was adopted to promote child welfare,” the ACLU said. “The only purpose the ban could possibly serve is the forbidden one: expressing the state's disapproval of lesbians and gay men.” The ACLU also notes that more than 3000 children languish in Florida foster care homes awaiting adoption.
Judge Birch's Comments
“We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate, such as the current one over the compatibility of homosexual conduct with the duties of adoptive parenthood,” Judge Birch wrote. “The state of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who 'engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity' and we have found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment.” Any argument that the Florida Legislature “was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional policy,” Birch said.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have either passed laws or had appellate court rulings permitting same-sex couples to adopt children. Florida is the only state with a law specifically forbidding adoptions by any gay, lesbian or bisexual person.
[Editor's Note: For up-to-date information on the fast-changing issue of same-sex marriage and adoption, please visit http://www.ljnonline.com/alm?map and click on the interactive map.]
On Jan. 28, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's right to prohibit gay men and lesbians from adopting children. Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services, 01-17623. In a ruling written by Judge Stanley Birch, the court turned down a challenge to the 1977 law filed by four gay men seeking to adopt the children they are raising.
The law was enacted at the height of Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign decades ago, and has withstood several challenges in state court. The decision comes as states react to court rulings favoring gay marriage and a Supreme Court decision in June striking down laws criminalizing gay sex.
Florida argued the state has a right to legislate its “moral disapproval of homosexuality” and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development. In court filings, the state had said it prefers to place children in homes with both mothers and fathers, stabilized by long-term marriage. “In such homes, children have the best chance to develop optimally, due to the vital role dual-gender parenting plays in shaping sexual and gender identity and in providing heterosexual role modeling,” the state said.
The Defendants' Argument
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the gay couples, argued that Florida has allowed couples with drug and alcohol problems or histories of domestic violence to adopt children. Florida judges also allow some gay couples to become a child's permanent legal guardians, the group noted. “Given the state's frank acknowledgment that lesbians and gay men pose no risk of harm to children, and its willingness to place children with lesbians and gay men permanently, it is impossible to credit the idea that the ban was adopted to promote child welfare,” the ACLU said. “The only purpose the ban could possibly serve is the forbidden one: expressing the state's disapproval of lesbians and gay men.” The ACLU also notes that more than 3000 children languish in Florida foster care homes awaiting adoption.
Judge Birch's Comments
“We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate, such as the current one over the compatibility of homosexual conduct with the duties of adoptive parenthood,” Judge Birch wrote. “The state of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who 'engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity' and we have found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment.” Any argument that the Florida Legislature “was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional policy,” Birch said.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia have either passed laws or had appellate court rulings permitting same-sex couples to adopt children. Florida is the only state with a law specifically forbidding adoptions by any gay, lesbian or bisexual person.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.