Florida Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban
She found no “rational basis” to prohibit adoption, especially since they are allowed to be foster parents. (H/T Andrew Sullivan)
I don’t have much to add but to contrast two excerpts:
John Stemberger, chairman of a successful drive earlier this month to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Florida, called the ruling “classic judicial activism” and predicted it would be reversed on appeal.
“Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child,” said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. “What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father.”
and
The ruling means that Martin Gill, 47, and his male partner can adopt two brothers, ages 4 and 8, whom he has cared for as foster children since December 2004.
“I’ve never seen myself as less than anybody else,” Gill said. “We’re very grateful. Today, I’ve cried the first tears of joy in my life.”He said the two boys have been practicing writing their new last names, and the older one said: “That’s what’s going to make us a family.”
8 Responses to “Florida Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban”
I have no issue against gay adoption, and I don't think it should be banned. But for a judge to put her personal views ahead of and in place of the duly elected Florida Legislation is indeed the worst form of judicial activism. There is no law supporting her opinion, just her contention it is a 'bad' law.
Theses need to be addressed by the bodies empowered by the various Constitution's to create law. Otherwise, why bother with Governors and Legislators at all? Just let the courts set the law and run the states and the country.
When I heard this on the radio I was dumbfounded. It seems like whatever people decide to do, by means of law, voting or democracy, a liberal judge will come along and say “fuck you, I'm giving gays more privileges.” It really frustrates people (like myself) who are opposed to gay marriage. You go with a civil union position (i.e. Connecticut) and a liberal judge says “fuck you, they get marriage.” You go with plebiscites banning gay marriage and gay adoptions and a liberal judge says “fuck you, we're giving it to them anyway.”
It's like, damn social moderates and conservatives just have no where to go.
Maybe judges take these routes because they realize that it's wrong to discriminate against someone because of their sexual identity. It has nothing to do with liberal judges – they're just rational enough to realize that the conservative position on this issue is flat out wrong.
JW – so, you are agreeing that judges should run the country, and voters and legislators be damned. I assume if they feel that whatever socio-religious-ethnic group you belong to should be rounded up and jailed, because THAT is better for society in their opinion, you will meekly report to prison.
And the Left wonders why the Right calls you Fascists.
Oh please Austin. Overreact much? Jesus, you rightwingers with your liberal boogeymen. My point is simply that judges DO need to step in from time to time to assert and protect the rights of a minority against people like you and SmoothJazz.
Nice touch with the “fascist” comment at the end. And you wonder why liberals don't take you seriously anymore.
Definition of “judicial activism”: When a judge makes a decision you don't like.
In this particular decision, it wasn't a matter of what the judge's “opinion” was, but rather what was constitutional. Just because something is popular or “traditional” doesn't necessarily mean it's constitutional. Throughout history there have been MULTITUDES of voter-approved laws that have been subsequently declared constitutional. This is one of those cases.
Take the California Supreme Court decision on marriage equality, for example. It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
JW – sorry, but a Circuit judge cannot declare a law unconstitutional simply because they think it is vaguely 'unfair'. They must be able to cite precedence to do so.
The setting of those precedences is the role of the Appellate courts, if and only if they can find other cause withing the existing body of law and Constitutional language to do so.
Otherwise, it is a Legislative prerogative to set the laws. That is the whole 'checks and balances' thingy, not 'the courts get to decide what they want the law to be'.
Fascist.
[...] Florida Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban (themoderatevoice.com) [...]