(no subject)
Warri...@aol.com
At times we all wonder if any one understands that the Gay Community is about
love, family, inclusiveness. The following is the lead editorial of The
Washington Post. I would like to point out that as the lead editorial it
represents the official opinion and stance of The Washington Post Company as
opposed to news or op-ed columns.
If you like the editorial - you can access it through our website
WashingtonPost.com. Comments can be directed to Colby I King - Editor of The
Editorial Page.
Marc
You have been sent this message from Warri...@aol.com as a courtesy of the
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com).
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27436-2001Aug31.html
Pure Discrimination
STEVEN LOFTON, a pediatric nurse, has spent the last 10 years caring
full-time for three foster children born with HIV. A child placement agency
in Florida gave him its Outstanding Foster Parenting award. But when Mr.
Lofton applied to adopt one of his children, Florida state authorities denied
the application. The same fate met Douglas Houghton Jr., who -- as a federal
district court wrote this week -- has cared for a child since that child's
"biological father, suffering from alcohol abuse and inconsistent employment,
voluntarily left him with Houghton [at] four years old." Why were these
apparently worthy parents turned down? A Florida law forbids anybody to adopt
"if that person is a homosexual."
This week, a federal court in Florida upheld this most offensive of
prohibitions against gay adoption -- the strictest in the country -- against
a constitutional challenge by Messrs Lofton and Houghton. Judge James
Lawrence King wrote that he did not doubt that the "emotional ties" between
these men and their foster children were "as close as those between
biological parents" and their children or that "a deeply loving and
interdependent relationship" is present. Nor did he buy Florida's contention
that the law is a legitimate expression of "the State's moral disapproval of
homosexuality." The judge rightly noted that a discriminatory "classification
to express society's disapproval of a group" is unconstitutional, "precisely
what the Equal Protection Clause does not allow." But in the judge's view,
the state had offered another basis for its discriminatory policy, one
sufficiently rational as to compel him to validate the law: "a child's best
interest is to be raised in a ho!
me stabilized by marriage, in a family consisting of both a mother and a
father."
The notion that such a judgment could justify banning <em>all</em> gay
adoptions is as absurd legally as it is morally. Though Florida does not
allow unmarried couples to adopt jointly, fully 25 percent of children
adopted in Florida out of foster care are adopted by unmarried individuals.
So if the goal really is to ensure that adoptive children are put into
households bound together by marriage, it is being violated routinely in
practice. In fact, gays are the only group categorically prevented from
eligibility for adoption: Substance abusers, perpetrators of domestic
violence, even many felons are not automatically disqualified.
The irrationality of the anti-gay rule is highlighted by the circumstances of
this case. No one can argue seriously that the state's law is protecting the
"best interest" of these children by making them subject to removal from the
only stable homes they have known. There are 3,400 children awaiting adoption
in Florida; the state isn't serving their interests, either, by removing an
entire category of potential loving parents from consideration. There is
simply nothing that can justify this law. It is, rather, precisely the sort
of unjustified targeting of vulnerable minorities that the Constitution
forbids.
You have been sent this message from Warri...@aol.com as a courtesy of the
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com).
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27436-2001Aug31.html
Pure Discrimination
STEVEN LOFTON, a pediatric nurse, has spent the last 10 years caring
full-time for three foster children born with HIV. A child placement agency
in Florida gave him its Outstanding Foster Parenting award. But when Mr.
Lofton applied to adopt one of his children, Florida state authorities denied
the application. The same fate met Douglas Houghton Jr., who -- as a federal
district court wrote this week -- has cared for a child since that child's
"biological father, suffering from alcohol abuse and inconsistent employment,
voluntarily left him with Houghton [at] four years old." Why were these
apparently worthy parents turned down? A Florida law forbids anybody to adopt
"if that person is a homosexual."
This week, a federal court in Florida upheld this most offensive of
prohibitions against gay adoption -- the strictest in the country -- against
a constitutional challenge by Messrs Lofton and Houghton. Judge James
Lawrence King wrote that he did not doubt that the "emotional ties" between
these men and their foster children were "as close as those between
biological parents" and their children or that "a deeply loving and
interdependent relationship" is present. Nor did he buy Florida's contention
that the law is a legitimate expression of "the State's moral disapproval of
homosexuality." The judge rightly noted that a discriminatory "classification
to express society's disapproval of a group" is unconstitutional, "precisely
what the Equal Protection Clause does not allow." But in the judge's view,
the state had offered another basis for its discriminatory policy, one
sufficiently rational as to compel him to validate the law: "a child's best
interest is to be raised in a ho!
me stabilized by marriage, in a family consisting of both a mother and a
father."
The notion that such a judgment could justify banning <em>all</em> gay
adoptions is as absurd legally as it is morally. Though Florida does not
allow unmarried couples to adopt jointly, fully 25 percent of children
adopted in Florida out of foster care are adopted by unmarried individuals.
So if the goal really is to ensure that adoptive children are put into
households bound together by marriage, it is being violated routinely in
practice. In fact, gays are the only group categorically prevented from
eligibility for adoption: Substance abusers, perpetrators of domestic
violence, even many felons are not automatically disqualified.
The irrationality of the anti-gay rule is highlighted by the circumstances of
this case. No one can argue seriously that the state's law is protecting the
"best interest" of these children by making them subject to removal from the
only stable homes they have known. There are 3,400 children awaiting adoption
in Florida; the state isn't serving their interests, either, by removing an
entire category of potential loving parents from consideration. There is
simply nothing that can justify this law. It is, rather, precisely the sort
of unjustified targeting of vulnerable minorities that the Constitution
forbids.
You have been sent this message from Warri...@aol.com as a courtesy of the
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com).
To view the entire article, go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27436-2001Aug31.html
Pure Discrimination
STEVEN LOFTON, a pediatric nurse, has spent the last 10 years caring
full-time for three foster children born with HIV. A child placement agency
in Florida gave him its Outstanding Foster Parenting award. But when Mr.
Lofton applied to adopt one of his children, Florida state authorities denied
the application. The same fate met Douglas Houghton Jr., who -- as a federal
district court wrote this week -- has cared for a child since that child's
"biological father, suffering from alcohol abuse and inconsistent employment,
voluntarily left him with Houghton [at] four years old." Why were these
apparently worthy parents turned down? A Florida law forbids anybody to adopt
"if that person is a homosexual."
This week, a federal court in Florida upheld this most offensive of
prohibitions against gay adoption -- the strictest in the country -- against
a constitutional challenge by Messrs Lofton and Houghton. Judge James
Lawrence King wrote that he did not doubt that the "emotional ties" between
these men and their foster children were "as close as those between
biological parents" and their children or that "a deeply loving and
interdependent relationship" is present. Nor did he buy Florida's contention
that the law is a legitimate expression of "the State's moral disapproval of
homosexuality." The judge rightly noted that a discriminatory "classification
to express society's disapproval of a group" is unconstitutional, "precisely
what the Equal Protection Clause does not allow." But in the judge's view,
the state had offered another basis for its discriminatory policy, one
sufficiently rational as to compel him to validate the law: "a child's best
interest is to be raised in a ho!
me stabilized by marriage, in a family consisting of both a mother and a
father."
The notion that such a judgment could justify banning <em>all</em> gay
adoptions is as absurd legally as it is morally. Though Florida does not
allow unmarried couples to adopt jointly, fully 25 percent of children
adopted in Florida out of foster care are adopted by unmarried individuals.
So if the goal really is to ensure that adoptive children are put into
households bound together by marriage, it is being violated routinely in
practice. In fact, gays are the only group categorically prevented from
eligibility for adoption: Substance abusers, perpetrators of domestic
violence, even many felons are not automatically disqualified.
The irrationality of the anti-gay rule is highlighted by the circumstances of
this case. No one can argue seriously that the state's law is protecting the
"best interest" of these children by making them subject to removal from the
only stable homes they have known. There are 3,400 children awaiting adoption
in Florida; the state isn't serving their interests, either, by removing an
entire category of potential loving parents from consideration. There is
simply nothing that can justify this law. It is, rather, precisely the sort
of unjustified targeting of vulnerable minorities that the Constitution
forbids.
--
This is message #315.
**********
To post, send mail to <gay...@groups.queernet.org>.
To unsubscribe, send mail to <gaynet-un...@groups.queernet.org>.
(This may fail if your address has changed since you signed
up; if so, or for other assistance, contact <gaynet...@groups.queernet.org>.)
For information about other lists, or to create and manage a list on
a topic that interests you, see <http://www.queernet.org> for details.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Chief Thracian
>gays are the only group categorically prevented from
>eligibility for adoption: Substance abusers, perpetrators of domestic
>violence, even many felons are not automatically disqualified.
This is the system that has evolved, when based on ideas that
homesexual love is more heinous than even rape, child abuse, and
vicious bludgeoning and murder. They thought AIDS would rid their
upstanding hetero world of all faggots...they were mistaken, and the
growing anger is turning into a global tidal wave of sheer hatred
towards all non-hets everywhere.
---
I am Cerberus who guards the gates of hell,
protecting my gay pups from the wrath that
shall soon pour fourth from these gates.
I am Damien, The Werewolf.
---
http://surf.to/gaybible
--
This is message #323.