LGBT writing paper on homosexual adoption

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by [][][], Feb 9, 2005.

  1. [][][]

    [][][] what makes you think i wont cut you

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,875
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    nebrasky
    need some help from y'all.
    basically give me your opinions on it, and why every state shouldnt be florida
     
  2. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Adoption More Open for Gays and Lesbians


    Discrimination based on sexual orientation still exists, but many adoption agencies are open to placing children with gay and lesbian parents, according to "Adoption Agency Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Prospective Parents: A National Study."

    The Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., study features results of the first nationwide survey focusing on attitudes and practices by agencies regarding homosexual adoption, which was mailed to 891 adoption program directors in public and private adoption agencies. Findings are based on 214 completed surveys received from 194 private agencies in 45 states and Washington, D.C., and 20 from public agencies in 13 states.

    "Sixty-three percent of the respondents said their agency accepted adoption applications from homosexual individuals, and nearly 38% indicated they had made at least one adoption with a gay or lesbian adult during the two-year study period," notes David Brodzinsky, an associate professor in the Department of Psychology and director of the Foster Care Counseling Project at Rutgers.

    Brodzinsky found two key factors that impacted willingness to consider homosexuals as adoptive parents: the religious affiliation of the agency and the type of children it placed. According to the survey, agencies operating under fundamentalist Christian beliefs were "never" willing to accept applications from homosexuals. Agencies affiliated with the Catholic Church were "seldom" willing to accept applications; only 14% said they would. Forty-two percent of mainstream Protestant-affiliated agencies and 92% of Jewish-affiliated agencies were willing to accept applications from gay and lesbian individuals. Public agencies were 100% willing, except in states that ban homosexual adoption, and 77% of private, nonaffiliated agencies indicated that they would accept applications from gays and lesbians.

    "Some religiously affiliated agencies didn't have direct edicts against homosexual adoption. Instead, they had policies of only placing children with married couples, which meant they didn't accept adoption applications from single parents or homosexual adults," explains Brodzinsky.

    Agencies handling children with special needs--such as those with medical, mental, or emotional problems; older minority children; and those in large sibling groups--were more likely to accept applications from homosexuals than all other agency types. In contrast, those focused on placing domestically born infants and toddlers were least likely to do so. Adoption agencies focused on international placements were willing to accept applications, depending on restrictions placed by the country of origin, such as China, which prohibits homosexual adoption.

    "We still have some major barriers to parenthood and adoption for lesbian and gay individuals," Brodzinsky notes. "Lots of stereotypes and prejudice still exists, and there is a long way to go, but we found that most agencies are willing to accept gay and lesbian applicants." Despite this finding and the fact that more people are applying as openly gay or lesbian adoptive parents, many agencies still follow an informal "don't ask; don't tell" policy.

    In reviewing agency practices, Brodzinsky identified a need to develop better training for agency personnel to understand the unique social and family issues surrounding adoption by gay and lesbian parents, and create pre- and post-adoption support services specifically geared toward this population. In addition, he found a lack of dedicated or active recruitment efforts geared toward encouraging homosexuals to become adoptive parents.

    "With over a half-million children in foster care and more than 100,000 waiting to be placed for adoption, the need for more adoptive parents is evident," he stresses. "There is growing recognition that homosexuals have the same capacities and can provide the same quality of care to children as heterosexuals, and the children do quite well. Homosexuals are a valuable parenting resource for raising children that need families."

    Copyright of USA Today Magazine is the property of Society for the Advancement of Education and its content may not be copied or e-mailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder`s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use.


    Source: USA Today Magazine, Apr2003, Vol. 131 Issue 2695, p8, 3p
     
  3. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    HOUSE NARROWLY APPROVES HOMOSEXUAL ADOPTION IN D.C.

    On duly 29, by a vote of 213 to 215, the House, under heavy pressure from homosexual groups, rejected an amendment to the District of Columbia Appropriations Act (HR 2587) sponsored by Rep. Steve I. argent (R.-Okia.) that would have stopped the District of Columbia from using federal dollars to promote adoptions by couples not related by blood or marriage.

    The bill would not, however, have left children unadopted, as critics claimed, because either member of a couple could singly adopt the child. Rather, Largent's amendment would have cleared up the ambiguity that led a federal judge in the District, who claimed that congressional intent was unclear, to award a little girl to two men. "It is a short amendment" said Largent, "and it is very explicit. It says, 'None of the funds contained in this act may used to carry out any joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.'"

    He said he knew his bill would create the same controversy and misrepresentation it did before it was passed last year.

    "What does it do, exactly? It prevents the District of Columbia from granting joint adoption to individuals that are not related by blood or marriage," said Largent. "Very simply, adoptions should be about the best interest of the child. Adoptions should not be about awarding children in some sort of culture war....

    "Here is the issue: What is in the best interest of the child? To throw them into an ambiguous, confused amorphous legal situation that does not establish clear lines of authority or responsibility, in my opinion, is not in the best interest of a child, and that is why we are debating this amendment today....

    "What happens if Mr. Jones or Ms. Smith part? How do the courts determine custody in such a case? Nobody knows. There is no legal precedent. What happens if more than two people unrelated seek joint custody? Why not three or four people unrelated by blood or marriage seeking joint custody of a kid? Nobody knows what happens if we go down this road. Is this really in the best interest of the child? Absolutely not."

    Rep. Jim Moran (D.-Va.) said the court was justified in awarding custody of the girl to two men because of the backlog of children in Washington waiting to be adopted. Further, he claimed all that had happened was that the court had ruled on the parenting ability of the men, as domestic law judges do all the time.

    In what proponents said was a distortion of the bill, Moran argued, "If we adopt this amendment, we are saying we would rather these children be left as orphans, without parents, than allow two people, who the court decides are suitable parents, to adopt those children. That is what this amendment is all about"

    "If we really love our children, let us be fair to them," countered Rep. Ronnie Shows (D.-Miss.). "Let them grow up in a stable environment. The Largent amendment is about taking family relationships and raising children seriously, it is fair and reasonable"


    A "yes" vote is a vote to stop the District of Columbia from using federal funds to promote adoptions by two unmarried, unrelated individuals, who could be of the same sex. A "no" vote is a vote to allow unmarried, unrelated persons to adopt children and is in effect a de facto endorsement of homosexual couples as a "family"
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Source: Human Events, 08/13/99, Vol. 55 Issue 30, p23, 1p
     
  4. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Title:Recent developments in lesbian and gay adoption law.
    Abstract: Discusses the recent developments in lesbian and gay adoption law. While several states have resolved questions relating to lesbian and gay adoption in the past few years, a couple of states have seen challenges to what appeared to be the status quo. The author starts with the cases in which courts of appeals have ruled on the permissibility of adoption by same-sex couples or single lesbians and turns next to the unresolved challenges. Nationwide, there appears to have been little political or legal resolution regarding the desirability of expansive notions of family. Yet the issue is on both judicial and legislative radar, playing out most frequently in the context of the relationship between marriage and adoption. Legislatures may have the ultimate say and can give relatively definitive answers to these questions: California, Connecticut and Vermont affirmatively permit same-sex couples to sanction their families; while Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah have answered to the contrary. In the meantime, constitutional challenges similar to the one in Florida may be brought in Mississippi, Oklahoma and, perhaps, Utah, while same-sex adoption remains uncertain in states without determinate judicial or legislative rules regarding co-parent adoption. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)


    Author(s): Appell, Annette R., William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NE, US

    Source: Adoption Quarterly, Vol 7(1), 2003. pp. 73-84.

    Journal URL: http://www.haworthpressinc.com/store/product.asp?sku=J145

    Publisher: US: Haworth Press

    Publisher URL: http://www.haworthpress.com

    ISSN: 1092-6755 (Print)

    Language: English

    Keywords: same-sex couples; homosexual adoption law; gays; lesbians; statutory law; case law
     
  5. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Hope these help. I tried to find a scientific study, but no luck yet. :bigthumb:
     
  6. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Two more:mamoru:

    Justices decline to hear appeal in Florida case

    Section: News, Pg. 03a

    WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed Florida to continue barring gay men and lesbians from adopting children under a law that is the only one of its kind in the nation.

    The high court's action -- taken in a brief order without a recorded vote -- leaves in place a lower court ruling that upheld the Florida law, which was passed in 1977 as part of an anti-homosexual campaign backed by singer Anita Bryant. The lower court said that there is no constitutional right to adopt children and that Florida has a legitimate interest in encouraging adoptions by families with a mother and father.

    The Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal was a setback for the American Civil Liberties Union and gay rights groups. They had hoped that the justices would use the Florida case to expand on a 2003 ruling in which the court struck down state anti-sodomy laws and said the Constitution's guarantee of privacy covers the sexual relations of gay men and lesbians.

    The ruling in that case, Lawrence vs. Texas , invalidated a Texas law that banned sex between homosexuals. Lower court judges have differed on how the rationale of the Lawrence decision, which is tied to the right of privacy, should apply to other laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

    The court's action Monday, taken as it rejected appeals in hundreds of other cases, sets no national precedent. Because the justices may decline to hear a case for a range of unstated reasons, denial of an appeal is not an endorsement of a lower court ruling. As a result, there was no widespread reaction by conservative groups suggesting that other states follow Florida's unique ban.

    The justices rejected an appeal brought by four gay men in Florida -- Steven Lofton, Wayne LaRue Smith, Daniel Skahen and Doug Houghton -- who are seeking to adopt children they have long cared for as foster parents.

    The Florida ban on gay adoptions was passed by the state Legislature in 1977 amid a backlash to a Dade County ordinance -- one of the first of its kind -- that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. According to court records, the adoption law's sponsor, state Sen. Curtis Peterson, said at the time that its purpose was to tell homosexuals: "We're really tired of you. We wish you'd go back into the closet."

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit sided with Florida after the statute was challenged as a violation of constitutional equality and due process of law. The appeals court noted Florida's claim that the law is part of a broader adoption policy "designed to create adoptive homes that resemble the nuclear family as closely as possible."

    Matthew Coles, a lawyer for the ACLU who represented the four men, noted that although Florida bans gay men and lesbians from adopting, it does not specifically exclude unmarried people or certain applicants who might pose a serious threat to children, such as substance abusers and people with a history of domestic violence.

    Coles argued that the Lawrence vs. Texas decision stands for the proposition that states generally may not disfavor gay people and, in this case, cannot outright exclude gay men and lesbians without evidence that they would not be good parents.

    The Child Welfare League of America, which has ties to more than 1,000 agencies that serve neglected children, had urged the justices to take the Florida case. The group said the state's policy conflicts with the best interests of thousands of children who are awaiting permanent homes.

    In urging the justices not to hear the appeal, Casey Walker, representing Florida's Department of Children and Families, said the state's adoption law differs significantly from the anti-sodomy law in the 2003 case. "The most critical distinction between Lawrence and this case is that this case involves adoption, long recognized as a public act that does not implicate privacy rights," Walker wrote.

    Walker said that Florida officials were gratified by the court's action.

    Monday was the justices' first day back on the bench after a month-long winter recess. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who has thyroid cancer, again was absent from the center chair.

    Rehnquist, 80, has been in the court building in recent days, working with his colleagues. But he has attended no oral arguments since October.

    Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said he could not attend the morning-long sessions "because of continuing secretions caused by his tracheotomy and radiation therapy."

    Rehnquist, whose illness has raised questions over whether he might retire soon and allow President Bush to replace the conservative chief justice, plans to swear in Bush during the Jan. 20 inauguration.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Ban on adoption by gays left intact
    Authors: Joan Biskupic
    Source: USA Today; 01/11/2005
    Accession Number: J0E409052623205
    Persistent link to this record: http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=J0E409052623205
    Database: Academic Search Premier
    * * *
    Ban on adoption by gays left intact

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title: My Two Dads? Not in Florida , By: Kennedy, John W., Christianity Today, 00095753, Apr2004, Vol. 48, Issue 4
    Database: Academic Search Premier
    Section: HeadLines
    ADOPTION LAW

    My Two Dads? Not in Florida

    U.S. Circuit Court upholds ban on gay adoption.

    Judicial rulings that have expanded sexual and marital rights for homosexuals in recent months have not extended to same-sex couples wanting to adopt, at least in Florida·

    The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January unanimously rejected a legal challenge by five men who sued the Florida Department of Children and Family Services for the right to adopt. Florida is the only state to prohibit homosexual individuals and couples from adopting.


    Lofton v. Florida is the first case in which a federal appeals court ruled on homosexual adoption. The three-judge panel ruled there is no such right under the Florida law.

    The decision is a victory against "judicial tyranny" exercised by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Massachusetts, said Alan Chambers of Exodus International in Orlando. "The state of Florida has affirmed the fact that a child needs a two-parent opposite-sex home as the optimal environment."

    The American Civil Liberties Union represented the five men. They all have been foster parents, which is permissible under Florida law.

    The state argued that under Florida law an adopted child's interest is best served in a family with a married mother and father. Florida precludes all homosexuals, but not all unmarried heterosexuals, from adopting. The judges wrote, "We conclude that there are plausible rational reasons for the disparate treatment of homosexuals and heterosexual singles under Florida adoption law."

    A survey last year by the Evan B. Donaldson Institute found that 60 percent of the nation's adoption agencies--compared to virtually none a decade earlier--accept applications from homosexuals, the chief resistance being from Christian agencies.


    No legitimate studies provide evidence that being raised by homosexuals is a positive experience, said Patricia Morgan, author of Children As Trophies. "It's been done for the sake of adult pressure groups, not in the best interest of children."
    ~~~~~~~~
    By John W. Kennedy
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2005
  7. CoCo

    CoCo ...is a Queer Don!! OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2004
    Messages:
    12,343
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland ; the land of Mary's...
    hehe, and I thought I was the local post-whore...:mamoru:
     
  8. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Just add alcohol, oops wrong thread, I mean boredom :mamoru:
     
  9. [][][]

    [][][] what makes you think i wont cut you

    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,875
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    nebrasky
    thank you so much for that
     
  10. Ferron

    Ferron So yes, I'll see you there.

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Yep, let me know if you need more. I'm bored and have databases at my fingertips :mamoru:
     
  11. Mirage

    Mirage Guest

    i wrote a paper on it, lemme know and i can send u it.
     
  12. Mirage

    Mirage Guest

    Oh yah if it makes u feel better. I'm a Poli Sci major at USC with a 3.4 gpa and 167 lsat.
     

Share This Page