Florida Ban on Homosexual Adoption Born of Bias and Ignorance

1 comment

October 5, 9:38 AM

by Jim Stillman, Tampa Bay Politics Examiner

 

 

Anita Bryant is, or was, a singer who became the spokesperson for the orange juice marketing industry in Florida. She is best remembered today for her anti-homosexual activities.

 In 1977, Dade County (Miami) passed a human-rights ordinance that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In response to this, Bryant led a highly publicized campaign to repeal the ordinance. The campaign was waged based on "Christian beliefs regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality" and the perceived threat of "homosexual recruitment of children and child molestation."

The concerns over homosexual recruitment of children inspired the name of Bryant's political organization, Save Our Children. Among Bryant's assertions during the campaign were "As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children" and "If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters." (I hesitate to speculate on Ms Bryant's fearful encounters with either St. Bernards or nail biters.)

On June 7, 1977, Bryant's campaign led to a repeal of the anti-discrimination ordinance by a margin of 69 to 31 percent. The results of Ms Bryant's crusade, for indeed that is what it was, went far beyond south-eastern Florida. The state legislature, proving itself steadfast for decency and America, enacted Section 63.042 (3) as part of the general laws on adoption: “No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual."

Dade County, in 1998, repudiated Bryant's successful campaign of 20 years earlier, and re-authorized an anti-discrimination ordinance protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a 7 to 6 margin. In 2002, a ballot initiative in that county, to repeal the 1998 law was voted down by 56% of the voters. The statute forbidding adoptions by gay persons in Florida, however, remains law.

There is a law of unintended consequences. The disallowance of homosexual adoption in Florida is resulting in the constantly increasing number of children who could be adopted by caring, loving parents. Generally, a number of states explicitly allow adoption by gay or lesbian couples. Some states allow "second parent" adoption (where one adopting person is the biological patent of the child), some states allow single-parent adoptions where the adopting person is gay or lesbian.

Florida is unbending. But, unhappily, is not alone. Mississippi Statutes § 93-17 provides: (2) Adoption by couples of the same gender is prohibited; Michigan law, § 710.24 allows only couple married to each other to adopt a child and under case law and Attorney General opinions, that would exclude adoption by same-sex couples since such marriages are not recognized or permitted in that state; and Utah Statute § 78-30-9 is somewhat different – and strange:

(3) (a) The Legislature specifically finds that it is not in a child’s best interest to be adopted by a person or persons who are cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state. Nothing in this section limits or prohibits the court's placement of a child with a single adult who is not cohabiting as defined in Subsection (3)(b). 

 (b) For purposes of this section, “cohabiting” means residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person.

 So if two Utah homosexuals do not actually live together or swear they do not have a sexual relationship, the adoption is permitted. Adoption is also permitted by a single homosexual individual.

Go figure.

Florida Statutes 63.042(3) was most recently challenged in a case brought by Steven Lofton. Rather than editorialize Mr. Lofton's ability to be an adoptive parent, the following is an excerpt of the decision of the Eleventh United States Court of Appeals, which rejected his petition to declare the statute unconstitutional:

 "Steve Lofton is a registered pediatric nurse who has raised from infancy three Florida foster children, each of whom has tested positive for HIV at birth. By all accounts, Lofton's efforts in caring for these children have been exemplary, and his story has been chronicled in dozens of news stories and editorials as well as on national television."

Notwithstanding this sympathetic petitioner, who was already taking care of three foster children with HIV but was prepared to adopt several more, the Circuit Court upheld the Florida statute. In January, 2005, the United States Supreme Court declined to grant review.

Not only was the Florida law born of bias, it is directly contrary to science. The American Academy of Pediatrics, as long ago as 2002, concluded that the existing body of scientific literature proves that children with one or two gay parents

 "fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual."

The studies show, according to the AAP, that children are "more influenced by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family than by the particular structural form it takes." There is thus no reason, the AAP concludes, to deny gays and lesbians the right to maintain or create parent-child relationships. Second, the AAP concluded that a legally sanctioned co-parent relationship provides important benefits for children. Many of these benefits are economic in nature-inheritance rights, health insurance coverage, Social Security survivor benefits, and a right of child support from both parents in the event of a separation.

But perhaps as important, legal recognition of a co-parent gives that co-parent the right to insist on maintaining the parent-child relationship whether or not the parents' relationship with each other survives. Maintaining relationships with both parents following divorce or separation is a primary concern in heterosexual custody cases; similar concerns about the well-being of children make this an important goal for children with gay parents as well. In the late 1990's, there were over 3500 children languishing in the over-crowded and under-funded Florida foster care system according to the newest statistics, the number has increased over the past five years to over 4200, an increase of over 7 %. Thousands of Florida children wait to be adopted. Many gay adults already serve as foster parents for these children. But Florida's law stands in the way of their adopting them, and offering them a permanent, stable, family home. The federal court wrote about nurturing families and the "best interests of the child" but the real basis for its ruling and the real basis for the actions of the Florida legislature are ignorance, bias and homophobia.

Anita Bryant's message lives on.

   Subscribe   Feed

Include other special offers from Examiner.com
Terms of Use