“There is no rational connection between sexual orientation and what is or is not in the best interest of a child,” says Florida Judge.

1/31/10-by Paula Brooks
A judge in Miami has called a third strike on a 1977 Florida law that bans LGBT couples from adopting children in the Sunshine State, after she approved judge approved the adoption of a 1-year-old girl by Vanessa Alenier, 34, and her partner Melanie Leon, 31, a Hollywood, FL lesbian couple.

“There is no rational connection between sexual orientation and what is or is not in the best interest of a child,” Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Maria Sampedro-Iglesia. She also called the anti-gay adoption law “unconstitutional on its face,” and that it could not be enforced.

“The permanent interests and benefit to all members of the adoptive household will be promoted by the adoption,” Sampedro-Iglesia wrote. Alenier “is a fit and proper person to adopt the child and has adequate resources and facilities to care for the child.”

Judge Sampedro-Iglesia’s ruling comes after a judge in Key West, Monroe Circuit Judge David J. Audlin, declared the law unconstitutional, after Audlin’s allowed a gay Key West lawyer, Wayne LaRue Smith, to adopt a boy he had been raising in foster care and Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman approved the adoption of two half brothers by a gay North Miami foster parent, Frank Martin Gill, after she too said the law was unconstitutional.

Florida Department of Children & Families administrators, who objected to the adoption, has not yet decided whether they will appeal.

“We are currently reviewing the judge’s decision and will make a decision on an appeal within the 30-day period,” agency spokesman Joe Follick said to the MiamiHerald

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, called Sampedro-Iglesia’s ruling “evidence of judicial activism’ that violates state law.

“A judge is not a legislature onto oneself,” Staver said. “Judges don’t have the ability to write laws any way they desire. They have to follow the rule of law, and this judge did not.”

While a Miami appeals court is set to determined the constitutionality of the embattled adoption ban latter this year, the Miami Herald also noted that Sampedro-Iglesia’s ruling indicates that judges “already have made up their mind about gay adoption.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Florida Judge Delivers Third Ruling Against Gay Adoption Ban (towleroad.com)
• Quote of the Week (Perhaps the Year) (mombian.com)
• National Adoption Month Interview: Adoption Benefits (hrcbackstory.org)
• Florida Adoption Court Ruling Matters Nationwide (bilerico.com)

The state government of Sydney, Australia had been considering legislation that would make it possible for the LGBT community to adopt children. There was a parliamential inquiry into the matter that suggested allowing gay adoption would benefit the Australian State of New South Wales, of which Sydney is a part of. Unfortunately the legislation was shot down.

The Minister of Community Services, Linda Burney, has said that the reason the ban was upheld is because, “”There are very deeply held, divergent views on this issue and that is why a decision on this matter will not be taken at this stage.” [The Sydney Morning Herald]

Advocacy groups for same sex marriage in Australia are said to be outraged. Given the flimsy excuse for rejecting the measure, this is not surprising. There are always strongly held beliefs on both sides of any civil rights argument and the reason given by Burney does not address the discrimination faced by Australia’s same-sex couples.  

 By Melanie Nathan -  After much back and forth emanating from my article on the Manhattan Declaration, a comment by Paula Brooks (thanks Paula) sent me scurrying to the CATH PEWS site.  If you have read the thread of over 100 comments from the latter article, you will note the tussle between LGR and CATH PEWS.  The site Administrator of Cath-Pews has denied gay hate, anti-gay language, yet it is very easy to find.  The articles they provide to enhance their arguments against gay marriage are hateful in purpose. It is there to subvert our rights and our equality.  How else can it be construed?

 So having been challenged by the admin of Cath -Pews I am providing a cryptic analysis based of one such article promoted by Cath Pews.   I have provided a demarcation between the article wording and my comments as can be seen from ITALIC BOLD = CATH-PEWS and REGULAR= Melanie.

 ANDERSON:-   ARTICLE :_
How to Make the Case for Marriage ,
(Using Non-religious Language)  
By Mary Jo Anderson

 Whether we like it or not, secularism is the dominant mode of public discourse today. Even those we encounter who are not “anti-faith” often place a high value on their understanding of “separation of church and state.”  Catholics must therefore be prepared to support moral positions without recourse to Scripture or religious vocabulary. That is an enormous challenge to Catholics who want to defend and preserve marriage as the only healthy model for an orderly society.  Before we go any further, we should make it clear that using secular terms to make the case for marriage in secular terms in no way suppresses or denies the faith. While it does omit a higher dimension of marriage, the secular case is effective because all truth—including the truth about men and women, marriage and family—is God’s truth. 

 MELANIE – Anderson, the Author provides an excuse and subversive means to hide the intention of faith behind overt secular language. This article is all but a ruse a desperate attempt to provide secular legitimacy to a faith based argument.  You cannot hide behind the intention! Simply ridiculous!

 ANDERSON – As such, it has an internal coherence that is part of the created order. One need not credit God with the physical laws of nature, such as gravity, to know that gravity works. Where the physical laws are violated, breakdown occurs. The same goes for the moral realm: A violation of God’s moral order brings chaos in human relationships. The evidence of that chaos is the source of the daily headlines and the nightly news broadcasts. When people of faith make the case for marriage using this kind of evidence, it is less likely to be perceived as “imposing religion.”

 MELANIE:-  This is a flagrant misrepresentation, as is the entire surreptitious intent of this article-  (A Catholic Virtue – to be manipulative and furtive? Anderson is providing the readers a way to Circumvent the truth of their own assertions by trying to slip it into secular form; a clear case of scape-goating?  How do we know that the church itself is not to blame for the depravity on earth?  After all the church has a violent history, borne through war for conversion!

ANDERSON   There is a secular argument for preserving natural marriage as the only legal definition of marriage and the one model of family life deserving of tax relief. The major building blocks are these:

1.             Nations that fail to form families suffer grave consequences, including loss of workers, loss of tax base, and decline in human ingenuity and productivity

MELANIE :-  “The proof of the pudding is in the eating”   as my beloved granny Rose would say: Firstly there are an ever increasing amount of Gay families out there.  In the US and abroad who are contributing to society in a big way.   The new census  2010, may reveal these numbers.  Let me give you my family as one itsy bitsy example and as a metaphor for all of us:-

I am a lesbian. I married spouse under California Law. We have been together for almost 10 years.  

I went to University for many years and have law degrees, which I use in my Conflict Resolution and Mediation practice, which I established over ten years ago.  I used to practice law and decided I would prefer to resolve conflict through mediation.  I function as any other American who owns a business.  The fact that my spouse is of the same sex has zero impact on my productivity or functionality.   In fact I was recently appointed by our County Board of Supervisors as a Commissioner on the County Human Rights Commission.  I serve on the Board as Vice President of A Fair Housing Group and volunteer in our congregation on social justice issues. I volunteer in the Courts to mediate family law matters for people who cannot afford attorneys.  I advocate in DC for equality. I would say about 90% of my free time is devoted to volunteer or pro bono work.   

My spouse teaches Hebrew language to children and adults; as well as bible studies.  She has   almost complete a Masters in Education.  She is brilliant and spends much of her free time with our children.  Our four year old has never had a babysitter because one of us is with the kids at all times.

In fact your argument is so false it makes an argument for the fact that we NEED EQUALITY.  You see we do not get to file Federal tax returns together and so everything costs us more. We have no Federal government benefits.   Your argument highlights that gay families are discriminated (in fact your thesis even calls for the discrimination …”no tax relief..”) against because within the realm of our productivity we are denied the  benefits that you get as a result of your productivity = unequal!   Your productivity does not endure as a result of your sex nor that of your spouse; my production does not occur as a result of my sex or the fact that my spouse is of the same sex.   The government takes our tax money- but as separate and not as joint, while we function as fiscally joint. Your argument has no foundation and simply makes no sense.

We have two daughters.  One was adopted from an orphanage in Vietnam as an infant, suffering from malnutrition and scabies; and is now a thriving all A’s scholar, budding young leader, who loves to help those less fortunate than herself.  She has great talent and will certainly be a productive and well adjusted adult. She will go to University, get a degree, help others, continue to volunteer for our congregation which focuses on helping the needy.  Just last week her class organized a lunch for homeless people in the area. This is not just a one- time event.   

My second daughter was conceived through donor sperm and Artificial Insemination.  She is four now and very smart. We were able to choose sperm of a genius and so have contributed to the population. Who knows maybe our daughter will be President of this Country. Who knows maybe our daughter will be the one to find a cure for diabetes, cancer, aids. Point is – we as a family have conscientiously and decidedly contributed to the increase of population and done so in a responsible fashion.

The adoption costs us about $35,000 and the insemination cost us about $8,000.  So you can see by choosing our modes of ‘birth” if you will, we have contributed to the economy.  We have saved a child from a difficult life and turned it into a situation where she will be ready to give to society in a big way. We pay for childcare, we pay for extra -activities, we pay for clothes, for food

IN SUM ,  Anderson  re my family:

1. We have added to human ingenuity;
2. We provide tax base plus more than we ought to if we had equality;
3.We are an extraordinarily productive family and contribute to our economy in a big way;
4. There are hundreds of thousands of other families like us- maybe millions;
5. If we had equal rights then we would have an opportunity to have more contributing gay families – and increase productivity.    

Conclusion – This  Anderson Argument is DOA!

ANDERSON:-  2. The question is not about denying individual rights but about promoting the good of the whole society.

MELANIE:- This is the argument that I just cannot understand. Most Pedophiles are straight white men.  Most incest occurs via straight fathers raping their children.  The US divorce rate is high;   we all know and easily condoned by Churches – some of which choose annulment. The latter simply denies the marriage ever took place even though there are children. Is that not destructive on society and morality?  

This particular statement made me laugh because of the contradiction in terms.  Ms. Anderson   we will be promoting the good of society if we had equal rights.  How can you on any level think that by denying equality society will improve? (Maybe we ought to bring Jesus in here – lest I forget this is a secular argument.)   Inequality leads to hate, validates inequities and injustice on a secular level. The scales are tipped. People suffer terrible hardship, such as Shirley Tan who highlights the plight of all  binational gay couples.   You tube and hear her testimony.

The question IS about denying rights and in doing so you are promoting an unequal society.  Argument DOA.

ANDERSON:-  3. Marriage and family provide benefits to society by producing, raising, and educating the next generation.

MELANIE:- Gay and lesbian families are in no way deterred in this function. We are already doing this and having equal rights and benefits will only strengthen our ability to be more even productive. Oh yes… Britney Spears marrying for 24 hours is productive; reality shows making a mockery of marriage where you line up bachelors and pretend to fall in love for TV exposure is a fine way to honor marriage and maintain its sanctity.  I could go on…. Let us add this to our secular argument.   Anderson Argument DOA.

ANDERSON:-  4. A strong family life offers the benefits of mental and emotional health.

MELANIE : Gay and lesbian families are in no way deterred in this function. We are already doing this and having equal benefits and rights will only strengthen our health.  Studies have been done to show how stressful it can be not to have equal rights.   

What part of my family life is not strong?  What position is Ms. Anderson in to make that assumption or judgment unless based on falsehood.  Would you like testimonials from my daughter’s school, from my clergy?  From my neighbors, from the homeless guys we fed yesterday?  Are you thinking my kids will turn out to be criminals? Are you presuming that my emotional and mental State is not in good order?  Simply ludicrous.  I can list the names of professionals, judges, politicians, moms, teachers, doctors, scientists, professors who are openly gay and who offer perfect emotional and mental health in living their lives at home and in society.  Who are you using as your example the ‘straight’ Senator with a straight marriage who played tootsie- footsie under the toilet door with a male prostitute?

 It is not possible with the amount of parental involvement and love we provide, to imagine that my home is anything but emotionally stable.  I am  not in need of super nanny and nor do I need a reality show.    There are studies showing that gay parents are of a high caliber and that we provide good and safe homes for our kids. . There are many millions of emotionally imbalanced straight families.  What about the woman, Smith who drove her kids into a pond and drowned them?   The mother who drowned five kids in the bath tub?  The suicides stemming from military returning home from WAR? What about the child abuse day to day; the trash who loose their kids in the night to suspect circumstances? You only have to watch Nancy Grace’s show to see that my life and that of hundreds of thousands of gay families have had nothing to do with the sicko’s in this society.  Straight America is doing fine in its own destruction without gay help or influence. I challenge you to find one gay family convicted of murder.   Anderson argument = DOA

ANDERSON:-  5. These blocks build on the foundation of the common good: shared commitment to a society ordered to the good of the most members.   No Marriage, No Civilization

MELANIE:- Exactly and thanks for making my case and RESTING  MY CASE FOR ME-  THANKS MARY JO ANDERSON – not only have you failed to make your secular argument but you have revealed a furtive attempt to avoid the faith based argument AND  you have successfully made the argument for WHY GAY MARRIAGE EQUALITY WILL ACTUALLY ENHANCE SOCIETY.  

  Yeah – at last We are in agreement marriage – Civilization – Give everyone the right to marriage one person of their choice regardless of sexual identity. This secular argument, albeit furtive,  works after all. It works for our equality and not against it.  So maybe Ms. Anderson your attempts have backfired and you should go back to your religious argument. In truth the religious argument is the only one that may hold any relevance at all and to that end I say thank G-d for the separation of Church and State.

In the words of Anderson per an article on credentials for Bishops “Our bishops must foster authentic marriage and family life. In the heart of the family the dignity of the human person is taught and the future is nurtured. Healthy families are the source of a moral people, ethical citizens, and vocations,” she concluded. ”

In light of this comment Ms. Anderson how hypocritical is it of you to argue against marriage for all G-d’s flock?

  Mary Jo Anderson :-  

By Blogger, Melanie Nathan, contact
nathan@privatecourts.com /
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

9/15/09-by Paula Brooks

Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish have been denied permission to adopt a 14 month-old HIV positive orphan by the Ukrainian government because according to them, Sir Elton is too old and too gay.

The Ukraine Minister of Family, Youth and Sports Yuriy Pavlenko said yesterday that Ukrainian law only allows for married couples to adopt children and also restricts people who are more than 45 years older than the child from adopting that child.

While John and Furnish have been civil partners in the UK since 2005, the Ukraine does not recognize same-sex unions and Sir Elton is 62 years old.

The child, who is only known as Lev, lost both of his parents to AIDS.

On Saturday, Sir Elton said at a press conference in Ukraine that the boy – whom he met at an orphanage for children whose lives had been affected by Aids and HIV, – had “stolen my heart”, as he and his long time partner, filmmaker David Furnish toured the orphanage as part of the singer’s work with the Elton John Aids Foundation.

Had John and Furnish been allowed to adopt the child, Ukrainian law also require they adopt his brother, who is also in state care as well.

“Foreign citizens who are single have no right to adopt children… and the age difference between the adopter and the child cannot be more than 45 years,” Ukrainian family, youth and sports minister Pavlenko said to the Associated Press. ” Elton John will not be able to adopt a Ukrainian child and if he files that request we will unfortunately deny it. The law is the same for everybody – for a president, for a minister, for Elton John.”

LGR sources over at the US State Department tell us that John could still appeal to Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko for permission to adopt the children, but local politics would probably become an issue; Our source said The Ukraine is entering election season and the issue of foreign adoptions and gay rights are very sensitive ones in that country at the moment, so that avenue would also appear to be closed.

So sadly, two children… who could have the best of care, provided by two loving parents, and all that Sir Elton’s money and name could give them, today still sit in an orphanage, victims of local politics and prejudice.

• Elton John wants to adopt Ukrainian toddler (msnbc.msn.com)

A new District of Columbia law, which took effect on July 18, 2009, will afford woman who bear children conceived by artificial insemination, to have their same sex spouse or unmarried partner appear as a parent on the child’s birth certificate as a legal parent if that partner consents in writing to the insemination.

With the passing of this legislation, the District of Columbia will become the first jurisdiction in the nation to enact a statute specifically providing children born through artificial insemination with two legal parents from the beginning even when those parents are a same-sex or different-sex unmarried couple.

Until now, a mother’s same-sex partner in the District of Columbia could become a child’s parent only through an expensive and lengthy adoption process.

But since the District of Columbia laws ban surrogacy, this measure does not affect the legal status of the partner or spouse of a gay man who has a biological child born in another jurisdiction using a surrogate mother. However, under existing District law, that partner can adopt the child and may also have some legal rights and obligations as the child’s de facto parent.

The DC Department of Vital Records is current preparing the consent forms that, when signed by both women, will result in placing the names of both parents on the child’s birth certificate.

In a statement issued by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Nancy Polikoff, Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, said, “A mother should not have to adopt her own child. When a heterosexual married couple uses artificial insemination to have a child, the husband does not have to adopt the child born to his wife. He is the child’s legal parent automatically. Now the child of a lesbian couple will have the same economic and emotional security accorded the children of heterosexual married couples who use artificial insemination.”

DC Council member Phil Mendelson was the principal sponsor of the new DC law, and the legislation received unanimous support from all 13 members of the D.C. Council from introduction to its passage.

Said Shannon Minter, NCLR’s legal director, “By establishing legal ties for families from the moment a child is born, this law provides same-sex parents and their children with much needed security and stability. We are especially grateful to Council member Phil Mendelson for shepherding the bill through to passage and to his staff for their meticulous work.”

The enactment of this law follows another new law that recognizes same-sex couples married elsewhere as legally married in the District. The D.C. Council is expected to legalize gay marriage in the city later this year after legislation is introduced.

http://www.nclrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_DCparentingbill072209

Related articles by Zemanta

• Children of gay couples speak out (cnn.com)
• D.C. council votes to recognize gay marriages; Congress has final say (seattletimes.nwsource.com)