Adoption Law in Florida
From USA Today
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed Florida to continue barring gay men and lesbians from adopting children under a law that is the only one of its kind in the nation.
The high court's action - taken in a brief order without a recorded vote - leaves in place a lower court ruling that upheld the Florida law, which was passed in 1977 as part of an anti-homosexual campaign backed by singer Anita Bryant. The lower court said that there is no constitutional right to adopt children and that Florida has a legitimate interest in encouraging adoptions by families with a mother and father.
Although I hadn't expected it, I had slightly hoped that the Supreme Court would hear this case, and pass a similar ruling to the one it passed in Lawrence v. Texas, where it struck down a law banning sodomy. It really shows the naked altruism of the religious right, that they would rather have a child suffer in a vicious foster care system, than be placed in a loving home with gay parents.
Maybe this is a controversial position, but I don't think there should be any such ban. Those who have read this blog for a while know that I also think gay marriage
should be legalized.
The USA Today article above concludes that the justices' decision not
to hear the case is not a victory for either side; I disagree. This is a win for the religious right. They were shocked and dismayed when the court overturned the Texas sodomy law.
An excellent example of the religious right's views on these "moral values" issues is Phyllis Schlafly, a lawyer and radio talk show host. I recently had the (unpleasant) experience of reading her latest book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It. The following quote is very revealing of the attitude of the religious right (especially for those of you who think they won't live to see a christian theocracy):
The out-of-the-mainstream attitudes expressed in the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas dealt a devastating blow to long-standing American laws and beliefs about morals and self-government, striking down our right to legislate against immoral actions and doing so without advancing any argument that reasonably relates to the U.S. Constitution. No constitutional argument justified the decision that created the new right of sodomy. The decision evolved out of the social preferences of the justices and their pandering to liberal elites.
Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, based it on "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives." It's obvious that using the criterion of "emerging awareness" gives much more latitude to the judicial supremacists who want to impose their avant-garde doctrines than does adhering to the Constitution, the text of the laws, and the intent of the people.
Now it's true that the Supreme Court has many times taken "liberties" (please excuse the pun) with the constitution; but note that this is not what Schlafly (and the conservatives) are against. They are opposed to the idea of the Supreme Court as a check
on their arbitrary power to legislate christian morality; they are opposed to the power of judicial review
This is why it's imperative that Bush not nominate any more conservatives like Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court. Just two more conservative justices could very well end judicial review, and condemn all of us to the tyranny of the state we live in.
POSTED BY THE GENERAL AT 2:11 AM