Florida Won’t Appeal Ruling That Found Gay Adoption Ban Unconstitutional

By Carlos Santoscoy – On Top Magazine
Published: October 13, 2010
The Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) announced Tuesday evening that it would not appeal a court ruling that found the state’s gay adoption ban unconstitutional, CNN reported.

Last month, a 3-judge appeals court unanimously upheld a lower court’s ruling that found the law to be unconstitutional and to have “no rational basis.”

“We had weighed an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court to achieve an ultimate certainty and finality for all parties,” DCF spokesman Joe Follick told CNN. “But the depth, clarity and unanimity of the DCA opinion – and that of Miami-Dade Judge Cindy Lederman’s original circuit court decision – has made it evident that an appeal would have a less than limited chance of a different outcome.”

Attorney General Bill McCollum has yet to announce whether his department will appeal the ruling.

The decision means that Frank Martin Gill, the plaintiff being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), can legally adopt the two half brothers he and his partner have raised since 2004.

“We are happy to hear that DCF wants to bring this case to an end and allow the Gill family to get on with their lives,” Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, said in a statement.

“What is needed now is a similar statement from Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum that will formally end this case and allow judges to decide – on a case-by-case basis – what is in the best interests of children.”

“Ending this case here will mean that gay people throughout the State of Florida can apply to adopt and will be treated like everyone else,” Simon added. “This means that more children will have the opportunity to have a permanent home with a loving family.”

Florida enacted the ban 17 years ago. It is the only state with an outright ban. Other states have enacted laws that limit gay couples’ access to adoption. Such as Arkansas, which denies unmarried couples – in a state that bans gay marriage – the right to jointly adopt children.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Pioneer of In Vitro Fertilization Wins Nobel Prize

October 4, 2010
New York Times
By NICHOLAS WADE

The Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine has been awarded this year to Robert G. Edwards, an English biologist who, with a physician colleague, Patrick Steptoe, developed the in vitro fertilization procedure for treating human infertility.

Since the birth of the first test tube baby, Louise Brown, on July 25, 1978, some four million babies worldwide have been conceived by mixing eggs and sperm outside the body and returning the embryo to the womb to resume development. The procedure overcomes many previously untreatable causes of infertility.

Dr. Edwards, a physiologist who spent much of his career at Cambridge University in England, spent more than 20 years solving a series of problems in getting eggs and sperm to mature and successfully unite outside the body. His colleague, Dr. Steptoe, was a gynecologist and pioneer of laparoscopic surgery, the method used to extract eggs from the prospective mother.

Dr. Steptoe, who presumably would otherwise have shared the prize, died in 1988. Dr. Edwards, who born in 1925, has now retired as head of research from the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge, which he and Dr. Steptoe founded as the world’s first center for in vitro fertilization.

Though in vitro fertilization is now widely accepted, the birth of the first test tube baby was greeted with intense concern that the moral order was subverted by unnatural intervention in the mysterious process of creating a human being. Dr. Edwards was well aware of the ethical issues raised by his research and took the lead in addressing them.

The objections gradually died away, except on the part of the Roman Catholic Church, as it became clear that the babies born by in vitro fertilization were healthy and that their parents were overjoyed to be able to start a family. Long-term follow-ups have confirmed the essential safety of the technique.

The deliberations of the prize-giving committee at the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden are confidential, and it is unclear why it took so long to acknowledge Dr. Edwards’s achievement. The committee routinely ignores the stipulation in Alfred Nobel’s will that the prize should be awarded for a discovery made the preceding year, because it takes longer than that to evaluate most scientific claims, but delays of 30 years or more are unusual. The Lasker Foundation in New York, whose jurors often anticipate the Nobel Prize committee, awarded Dr. Edwards its prize in 2001.

Dr. Edwards’s research proved too controversial for the Medical Research Council, a government financng agency that is the British equivalent of the National Institutes of Health. In 1971 the council rejected an application from Dr. Edwards and Dr. Steptoe to work on in vitro fertilization, but they were able to continue with private funds.

“In retrospect, it is amazing that Edwards not only was able to respond to the continued criticism of in vitro fertilization, but that he also remained so persistent and unperturbed in fulfilling his scientific vision,” Christer Höög, a member of the Nobel Prize committee, writes on the Nobel Foundation’s Web page.

in In the News / IVF  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Court In Spain Annuls Registration Of Twins Born To An American Surrogate

By Andrew Vorzimer ⋅ September 17, 2010 ⋅ A very disconcerting decision out of Valencia, Spain whose ramifications might be broader than originally reported:

The twins were born legally to a surrogate mother in the United States

The judge in First Instance Court 15 in Valencia has decided to annul the entry made in the Consular Civil Registry in Los Angeles, by a Spanish gay male married couple who were registered as the parents of twins. The twins were born legally in the United States by a surrogate mother.

Spanish legislation does not consider the surrogate process as legal, and now the judge has cancelled their registration after being appealed to do by the Prosecutor’s Office. The registration of the twins had previously been accepted by the DGRN, the Directorate General of Registries and Notaries, which considered at the time, in February 2009, that the application met all the formal requirements and did not break any international Spanish public order.

The Spanish Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals, FELGTB, described the Prosecutor’s attitude in presenting an appeal as ‘homophobic’. The judge explained the decision by saying the law in Spain is determined by the person who actually gave birth, and that person should be inscribed as a parent. The magistrate said that the same conclusion would be reached if the couple were men, women or straight, as the law does not distinguish between them. The gay couple say they will now place an appeal against the decision which they said showed that you can no longer say that there is equality in Spain.

While this couple is righteously indignant about the ruling, it does not appear this decision was based upon the couple’s sexual orientation. If the Judge is to be believed, then the outcome would be the same regardless of whether the Intended Parents are heterosexual or homosexual. This ruling appears to be the first since June when Spain joined 7 other European countries that sent written notifications to IVF clinics in India to not entertain surrogacy cases of citizens from their countries.

There are some unanswered questions as well about the impact of this decision, including: 1) Why are the twins not entitled to Spanish citizenship based upon the biological father’s Spanish citizenship; 2) Even if Spain were to recognize the Surrogate as the legal mother, why would they not recognize the biological father as the legal father; 3) Was the Surrogate married and, if so, did that play a role in the decision (which could answer my question #1); and 4) Will the twins be allowed to remain in the country while their parents perfect their immigration status?

This decision is yet another troubling reminder about the perilous nature of surrogacy today for international couples. For anyone considering surrogacy, in addition to performing your due diligence about the underlying legality of the arrangements and the methods by which your parental rights will be finalized, it is critical that you speak to an immigration and family law attorney in your country of residence to assess the impact of any applicable immigration and parentage laws. Unfortunately, given some of the situations that have recently arisen in India and the almost knee-jerk response by many European countries, I’m afraid these issues will remain prevalent for the foreseeable future.

in In the News / Surrogacy  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Declaring Florida’s Ban on Gay Adoption Unconstitutional

Towleroad.com – September 22, 2010 – In November, 2008, Judge Cindy Lederman ruled that Florida’s ban on gay adoption is unconstitutional. The ruling allowed Frank Martin Gill to move forward with adopting two brothers, ages 4 and 8, who had been in Gill’s foster care since 2004.

In the 53-page 2008 ruling, Lederman wrote: “It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent.”

The state of Florida appealed the ruling, and today a Miami appeals court ruled against the state:

“The 3rd District Court of Appeal issued its decision Wednesday affirming a lower court’s decision that the ban is unconstitutional. Florida is the only state with a law flatly banning gays from adopting children without exception. Gays can be foster parents in Florida. A Miami-Dade County judge ruled the gay adoption ban unconstitutional in 2008, but the state appealed. The case will ultimately go to the state Supreme Court. Martin Gill and his male partner, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the lawsuit in their attempt to adopt two brothers, whom they have cared for as foster children since December 2004.”

This is the case for which discredited “ex-gay” fraud George “rentboy” Rekers was paid $120,000 to serve as an “expert” witness for the state.

Last week, Florida Governor Charlie Crist said he was considering dropping this specific case:

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

New Law Allows For Unmarried Partners To Adopt

New York 1 – September 21, 2010

Unmarried partners, including gay couples, are now free to jointly adopt a child in New York State.

Governor David Paterson signed a law making the change on Sunday.

The law also puts “married couple” in the adoption statute, in place of what used to read “husband and wife.”

Bill sponsors say that is meant to ensure children get insurance and other benefits from both adults, as well as lifelong support even if couples split up.

Same-sex marriage is not legal in New York, but the state does recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Court allows gay man to adopt child

Maris Beck
September 12, 2010 – TheAge.com.au

A JUDGE has allowed a gay man to adopt his foster child in what is believed to be a first for Victoria.

The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, is in a gay relationship but has adopted the child by himself to comply with Victorian laws that make it illegal for gay couples to adopt a child together.

The New South Wales Parliament passed a bill this week giving same-sex couples full adoption rights, and similar rights already exist in Western Australia, Tasmania and the ACT.

The Victorian Commission for Equal Opportunity and Human Rights intervened in this case to protect the rights of the child, who had been abused and neglected until he was placed in the couple’s care four years ago.

Commissioner for Equal Opportunity Helen Szoke welcomed the judge’s order allowing the gay man to adopt the child, now 11, but said until the final judgment was made public, it was too early to say whether the case set a precedent. Dr Szoke said she was unaware of other cases of gay men being allowed to adopt children in Victoria.

”Until we see the reasons, it’s not clear what this does in relation to precedent or any changes long-term in relation to the laws,” Dr Szoke said. The 11-year-old boy told The Sunday Age he was overjoyed at the decision.

‘I’m really glad that I’m adopted. They always play with me and they do fun activities with me like going to the park and watching me play footy. It’s a really good thing.”

The boy’s adoptive father said it had felt like they were going on trial for their sexuality, and the possibility of losing their son had been ”hell”.

”It’s been a nightmare … in this limbo state.”

He said it had been a strain on him and his partner to decide who would be the one to adopt, but the outcome was just: ”We feel as though we’ve done our bit to help pave the path for others.”

The man’s partner said he could understand why some people thought every child should have a mother and a father but many children had neither.

He said when they first fostered their son, they had thought he had a speech impediment but then realised he had trouble speaking only because he had been so neglected. He is now confident and articulate, and his dads say he is thriving.

Karen Field, chief executive of Drummond Street Relationship Centre, said many foster-care agencies actively marketed themselves to gay couples and the state was heavily reliant on the assistance of gay foster carers.

She said the double standard that did not allow gay couples to adopt was ridiculous.

”In worst-case scenarios, you could have someone who could end up not being able to access a child that they’ve raised for a number of years.”

The Victorian Law Reform Commission said in 2005 it made ”no sense” that same-sex couples could be permanent and short-term carers for children in need but not assume the full legal powers and responsibilities.

Brian Lucas, general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, said: ”The general principle is that adoption needs to look at the welfare of the child and that will depend on very particular circumstances. I don’ t have any comment on the particular circumstances here.”

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

New South Wales Passes Gay Adoption Bill

by Allison Marcotte | Article Date: 09/03/2010 1:56 PM

A bill that would allow same-sex couples to adopt children was passed Thursday by the lower house of parliament in New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state.

According to The Australian, the bill passed with a close vote. It will allow same-sex couples to adopt a child together, as they can in the Australian Capital Territory and in Western Australia.

“Forty-six MPs voted for the historic bill and 44 voted against it yesterday, after a two-day debate,” reported The Australian on Thursday.

In an effort to make sure the bill passed, Sydney MP Clover Moore, who introduced it, included an amendment to allow religious adoption agencies to refuse service to same-sex couples without violating antidiscrimination laws.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Gay Adoptions

August 16, 2010
New York Tikes
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexico’s Supreme Court has voted to uphold a Mexico City law allowing adoptions by same-sex couples.

Monday’s 9-2 ruling by the justices rejects a legal challenge by federal prosecutors and others who argue the law fails to protect adoptive children against possible ill-effects or discrimination.

The court voted earlier this month to uphold the other portion of the Mexico City law which legalized same-sex marriages.

The law applies only in Mexico City.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Sharron Angle Opposes Gay Adoption

 

By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: August 16, 2010

Sharron Angle, the GOP nominee challenging Nevada Senator Harry Reid, is taking a new tact in discussing social issues: she’s ignoring them.

Angle’s stumbling over social issues, including gay rights, appears to be coming to a close.

The 61-year-old Southern Baptist recently made headlines when The Associated Press published a four-page questionnaire filled out by Angle for the Washington-based group Government is not God, which has endorsed Angle’s candidacy.

Among her positions, Angle opposes protections based on sexual orientation and gay adoption. She also believes clergy should be allowed to campaign from the pulpit on behalf of political candidates, which is currently banned by the federal government.

In a section titled politics, she says she would refuse PAC money from those who are fundamentally opposed to her views on social issues.

“In reference to question 35A, Intel Corporation supports ‘equal rights for gays’ and offers benefits to ‘partners’ of homosexual employees. Would you refuse funds from this corporate PAC?”

“Yes,” Angle checked.

The sixty-one-year-old former Nevada assemblywoman boasts about her support for the state’s ban on gay marriage at her campaign website.

Yet at a business networking breakfast on Tuesday, she steered clear of these issues.

When asked by a man, “What about those of us that are disenfranchised from Social Security because we are gay or lesbian and consequently are not allowed to marry, not allowed spousal benefits?” Angle elegantly shifted the conversation from gay marriage to citizen empowerment.

She told the man that he had just touched on what’s wrong with Social Security: “It doesn’t belong to us.”

“If you had a personalized retirement plan, you would be allowed to invest that 15 percent over the years, and that would then be yours to pass down as an inheritance,” she answered.

“Pivoting off the gay marriage question to Social Security, that’s a textbook example of answering the question you want to answer instead of the one you’re asked,” University of Nevada at Reno political science professor Eric Herzik told AOL News.

Senator Reid is facing a difficult re-election campaign that promises to test his lukewarm support for gay rights. Forty-eight percent of the state’s voters have a “very unfavorable” view of Reid and sixty-two percent describe him as a liberal, according to the latest Rasmussen poll.

Gay rights groups, on the other hand, continue to press the Senate majority leader on difficult issues, including whether he’ll help a federal gay workplace protections bill (ENDA) reach the Senate floor and the timing of a vote on repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 1993 law that bans openly gay troops.

Reid has promised the Senate will vote on repeal of the gay ban in September, before the midterm elections.

in Adoption / In the News  by Anthony Brown 0 comments

Parenting should be a nonissue in gay marriage debate

Supporters of Proposition 8 have made child-rearing a focus of the trial. But no other group is prohibited from marrying because of parental abilities, or lack thereof.

June 16, 2010 – LATimes.com

It wasn’t surprising that the federal trial on Proposition 8 in January confirmed that the same-sex marriage ban is destructive to family life and discriminatory toward a group that has historically been subject to abuse. What did surprise us: Some of the strongest arguments in favor of same-sex marriage were made by those opposing it.

Closing arguments in the case will be heard Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, more than four months after testimony ended. Even so, it’s easy to recall some of the startling moments of the trial. One witness who had been hired to testify that gay men and lesbians wield significant political power — and therefore were not a group that had especially suffered from discrimination — ended up conceding that at least some people voted for Proposition 8 because of prejudice against homosexuals. The witness, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, also had made statements in the past that minorities were vulnerable to harm from ballot initiatives, and that courts should protect them from such harm — an argument that seemed to weaken the case for his side.

Then there was David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values, who testified that preserving traditional marriage should take priority over the rights of gays and lesbians — but then offered no proof that same-sex marriage would in any way harm the institution of marriage, and admitted that marriage would be beneficial to families headed by same-sex couples.

The objective of the lawyers arguing for Proposition 8 before Judge Vaughn R. Walker is to show that voters had rational reasons for approving it rather than being motivated by bigotry. And a key reason, one of the lawyers said, is that children fare best when raised by a married couple of opposite genders.

The premise itself is dubious. A longitudinal study published online this month in the journal Pediatrics found that the adolescent children of lesbian couples fare very well. In fact, they “rated significantly higher in social, school/academic and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive and externalizing problems” than others their age.

The premise also is irrelevant. Just as we wouldn’t propose taking marriage away from heterosexual couples even though their children might not do as well as those of lesbians, there is nothing reasonable about denying marriage to same-sex couples based on judgments about child-rearing or anything else concerning the perceived quality of their marriages. Despite what Proposition 8 supporters have tried to argue during the trial, marriage is not solely about procreation and raising children; for many couples, that’s not even a factor. And same-sex couples who want children will have them whether or not they have a marriage license.

We’re sorry that Walker has even asked for a discussion of this issue at Wednesday’s session. Specifically, he wants to delve into the question of whether voters were acting rationally if they believed the marriage ban was in the best interests of children, even if their belief wasn’t backed up by facts. Society doesn’t force single parents to marry, even though there’s a general presumption that having two parents would be better for the children. It doesn’t force teenagers, still children themselves, to give up their children to older couples, or forbid people with kooky parenting theories to wed. Only gay and lesbian couples are singled out for this judgment of whether they’re good enough to marry and have children.

Walker refused to allow a video broadcast of Wednesday’s closing arguments after defenders of Proposition 8 opposed allowing the session to be aired. It’s a puzzling decision, especially considering that the judge favored allowing cameras during the trial. But the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked him for that decision, agreeing with Proposition 8 supporters that witnesses who oppose same-sex marriage could face harassment or worse if their testimony were televised. Yet the pro-Proposition 8 witnesses already had made themselves public figures.

Prohibiting cameras in the courtroom makes even less sense for the closing arguments, when there are no witnesses to feel intimidated. In this instance, the theory is that lawyers might play to the cameras instead of to the judge. If they were foolish enough to do so, after investing this much time and passion on both sides, they could only lose ground by alienating the judge. The millions of people who have been watching with intense interest as the story of same-sex marriage unfolds have a legitimate stake in seeing and hearing the arguments that will determine whether gays and lesbians in California are granted the basic right to form families with the same legal status as all other families.

in In the News / Legal / Parenting  by Anthony Brown 0 comments