Johnny Coli Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Via Miami Herald Florida ban on gay adoptions ruled unconstitutional A Miami-Dade circuit judge Tuesday declared Florida's 30-year-old ban on gay adoption unconstitutional, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two foster kids he has raised since 2004. In a 53-page order that sets the stage for what could become a constitutional showdown, Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman permitted 47-year-old Frank Gill to adopt the 4- and 8-year-old boys he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas four years ago. The FLA AG is going to appeal it, and whichever way the Appellate Court rules it will probably get heard in the Florida Supreme Court. In any event, one more brick in the bigot wall appears to be coming down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 New Zealand here I come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Via Miami HeraldFlorida ban on gay adoptions ruled unconstitutional The FLA AG is going to appeal it, and whichever way the Appellate Court rules it will probably get heard in the Florida Supreme Court. In any event, one more brick in the bigot wall appears to be coming down. I voted no on 8 here in CA (mostly because I vote no on pretty much all propositions) but if they reverse it here I'm never voting again on a proposition. The will of the people never works here. They've overturned so many of the votes here it's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 I voted no on 8 here in CA (mostly because I vote no on pretty much all propositions) but if they reverse it here I'm never voting again on a proposition. The will of the people never works here. They've overturned so many of the votes here it's ridiculous. Most of the time in California people don't even know what they are voting for or against, the propositions are worded so criminally poorly on the ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 The attorney general's office had argued that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately more likely to suffer from mental illness or a substance abuse problem than straight people, rendering them less fit to parent -- especially children in foster care who already are under tremendous stress. Yeah, it's a shame they don't have some sort of system set up to do background checks on prospective parents. I guess they'll have to add something like that now because gays will be able to adopt now and not just straights, who never have those problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Most of the time in California people don't even know what they are voting for or against, the propositions are worded so criminally poorly on the ballot. They do the same in florida. We had an amendment to vote for illegals owning property or not. It took me half an hour to decipher what they were asking. It was something like, "should the state ban a provision to the revision of the consititutional inhibition that illegals are not never allowed to not own any property none of the time?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 The attorney general's office had argued that gay men and lesbians are disproportionately more likely to suffer from mental illness or a substance abuse problem than straight people, rendering them less fit to parent -- especially children in foster care who already are under tremendous stress. Yeah, it's a shame they don't have some sort of system set up to do background checks on prospective parents. I guess they'll have to add something like that now because gays will be able to adopt now and not just straights, who never have those problems. Queers adoptiion is just a way to continue thier species. Queers hijacked the word gay so it is time to return to the good old days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hossage Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Adoptees to homosexual families suffer many, many times the rate of abuse of other children, and their relationships are likely to last an even shorter amount of time than normal couples. An easier argument to understand is that kids should have parents of both genders to learn from. If gay marriage is passed and I were to marry my straight best friend for his excellent health care and then pay him 2000 dollars to make it worth his while, then can I adopt a teenage daughter too? Hopefully a blonde one. Im not gay or a pervert, but you can see the problem here. Of course it isnt constitutional. Marriage meant straight people back then too. That is not to say that i do not like gay people or wish them ill will in any way. Society has to be able to make these kind of judgments or else things fall apart (worse than now). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Queers adoptiion is just a way to continue thier species. Queers hijacked the word gay so it is time to return to the good old days You want to get rid of all the queers just so you can tell people you're gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Queers adoptiion is just a way to continue thier species. Queers hijacked the word gay so it is time to return to the good old days I think they have a vaccination for contact gay now. Ok Fred. You and Wilma can have a gay old time then. Adoptees to homosexual families suffer many, many times the rate of abuse of other children, and their relationships are likely to last an even shorter amount of time than normal couples.An easier argument to understand is that kids should have parents of both genders to learn from. If gay marriage is passed and I were to marry my straight best friend for his excellent health care and then pay him 2000 dollars to make it worth his while, then can I adopt a teenage daughter too? Hopefully a blonde one. Im not gay or a pervert, but you can see the problem here. Of course it isnt constitutional. Marriage meant straight people back then too. That is not to say that i do not like gay people or wish them ill will in any way. Society has to be able to make these kind of judgments or else things fall apart (worse than now). Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Most of the time in California people don't even know what they are voting for or against, the propositions are worded so criminally poorly on the ballot. Oh I agree 100% on that. I go through the same thing that Ramius was talking about. Double negatives? No. Triple negatives? No. They somehow figure out how to get 3.5 negatives in those propositions and that sh-- just makes my head spin. But my question is why don't they do a better job of running them through legal to see if the proposition is even going to pass muster with the SC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Adoptees to homosexual families suffer many, many times the rate of abuse of other children, and their relationships are likely to last an even shorter amount of time than normal couples. An easier argument to understand is that kids should have parents of both genders to learn from. If gay marriage is passed and I were to marry my straight best friend for his excellent health care and then pay him 2000 dollars to make it worth his while, then can I adopt a teenage daughter too? Hopefully a blonde one. Im not gay or a pervert, but you can see the problem here. Of course it isnt constitutional. Marriage meant straight people back then too. That is not to say that i do not like gay people or wish them ill will in any way. Society has to be able to make these kind of judgments or else things fall apart (worse than now). I'd like to say that we are rarely treated to such retarded and nonsensical logic. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Yes, marrying your straight friend and then adopting a teenage daughter to abuse would technically make you both gay and a pervert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Adoptees to homosexual families suffer many, many times the rate of abuse of other children, and their relationships are likely to last an even shorter amount of time than normal couples. An easier argument to understand is that kids should have parents of both genders to learn from. If gay marriage is passed and I were to marry my straight best friend for his excellent health care and then pay him 2000 dollars to make it worth his while, then can I adopt a teenage daughter too? Hopefully a blonde one. Im not gay or a pervert, but you can see the problem here. Of course it isnt constitutional. Marriage meant straight people back then too. That is not to say that i do not like gay people or wish them ill will in any way. Society has to be able to make these kind of judgments or else things fall apart (worse than now). Shame on you. No counter arguments. If you don't give in to the liberal thought police posting on this board your a rube a redneck or bigot. Don't dare to trade words with the enlightened socially elite here. Much too advanced for the likes of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Oh I agree 100% on that. I go through the same thing that Ramius was talking about. Double negatives? No. Triple negatives? No. They somehow figure out how to get 3.5 negatives in those propositions and that sh-- just makes my head spin. But my question is why don't they do a better job of running them through legal to see if the proposition is even going to pass muster with the SC? The newspapers usually have a section before the election (hey I'm a poet!) that does a good job of putting those propositions into English. I'd like to say that we are rarely treated to such retarded and nonsensical logic. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Yes, marrying your straight friend and then adopting a teenage daughter to abuse would technically make you both gay and a pervert. Wait til Stupid Nation joins this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Shame on you. No counter arguments. If you don't give in to the liberal thought police posting on this board your a rube a redneck or bigot. Don't dare to trade words with the enlightened socially elite here. Much too advanced for the likes of you. Why aren't the politicians and others who support a ban elitists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 You want to get rid of all the queers just so you can tell people you're gay? Does your back bother you with your hands around your ankles all the time ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Adoptees to homosexual families suffer many, many times the rate of abuse of other children, and their relationships are likely to last an even shorter amount of time than normal couples. An easier argument to understand is that kids should have parents of both genders to learn from. If gay marriage is passed and I were to marry my straight best friend for his excellent health care and then pay him 2000 dollars to make it worth his while, then can I adopt a teenage daughter too? Hopefully a blonde one. Im not gay or a pervert, but you can see the problem here. Of course it isnt constitutional. Marriage meant straight people back then too. That is not to say that i do not like gay people or wish them ill will in any way. Society has to be able to make these kind of judgments or else things fall apart (worse than now). Stunning. You realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association both back same-sex adoption? The rest of your post fantasy is almost too ridiculous to comment on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 25, 2008 Author Share Posted November 25, 2008 Oh I agree 100% on that. I go through the same thing that Ramius was talking about. Double negatives? No. Triple negatives? No. They somehow figure out how to get 3.5 negatives in those propositions and that sh-- just makes my head spin. But my question is why don't they do a better job of running them through legal to see if the proposition is even going to pass muster with the SC? You'd be asking the SC to rule on legislation or law that doesn't exist, which they cannot do. If a particular ballot question doesn't pass then its constitutionality is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Shame on you. No counter arguments. If you don't give in to the liberal thought police posting on this board your a rube a redneck or bigot. Don't dare to trade words with the enlightened socially elite here. Much too advanced for the likes of you. Try reading his post and then defend the content. 1. He uses a BS statistic "many many times the rate of abuse", with no supporting numbers or links. 2. He then (again without any supporting facts) says that kids are better off with both genders of parents to learn from. This may be true or not. There's just no supporting anything. Plus, where does this leave kids with only one parent - better or worse off than adoptees of gay parents? How about kids that would live their lives in the foster system if gay adoption were not allowed? 3. He then goes into some outlandish, unlikely scenario in which he marries his best friend for the health insurance and then adopts a teenage daughter to abuse. (and the gays have a higher rate of abuse?) 4. And finally (and predictably) the 'not that there's anything wrong with gays' gem. There's nothing wrong with thinking that gays should not be allowed to marry or adopt, provided you have well-thought-out reasons for your opinion. In fact, feel free to be a bigot - it's a free country. I only have a problem with the deceptive and foolish manner in which that opinion is being presented here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 25, 2008 Share Posted November 25, 2008 Stunning. You realize that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association both back same-sex adoption? The rest of your post fantasy is almost too ridiculous to comment on. I'm still waiting for him to supply a link to his "facts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts