Bricker, what if it was argued (as I imagine it would be at the time) that homosexual behavior is immoral*, and the state has a legitimate interest in preventing children from being exposed to such immorality.
I imagine that Justice Scalia feels that “moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct” can be the basis for a legitimate state interest, at least based on his dissent in Lawrence.
If I could figure out how to give a standing ovation here, I would.
At OutRageous Bingo, the caller sometimes asks all us straight people to stand up. He will then either ask us how it feels to be the minority (all in good fun) or thank us for making so many gay and lesbian children. I’ve told him for years that he and his partner should take on some of the job for us but they really aren’t into the idea of parenting. Of course, neither am I so --------- I really can’t blame them.
See now, that wasn’t so hard.
While I agree with your conclusion, that the legislation doesn’t even meet the rational basis test, I find it an intriguing answer from someone like you who has expressed great displeasure for any legislation failing the rational basis test. After hearing your belief that laws prohibiting sodomy and laws prohibiting same sex marriage all pass rational basis test, I’m a bit suprised (happily though) that you don’t put any stock in the “tradition”, “children need role models of both sexes”, the loss of Roman Catholic adoptions, “biological impossibility”, “gay lifestyle”, “moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct”, “kids will be shunned”, and the rest of the tripe put forth as reasons for the ban, though.
By the by, I’m assuming your ruling would be different without the studies into same sex parenting that have been done in the last decade, correct? When would the statute have been become unconstitutional, to you? Was it the most recent study came out about same sex parents? Before then? Were they important to your rejection of the reasons put forth for the ban?
For reference:
"Cognizant ofthe narrow parameters of our review, we now analyze the challenged Florida law. Florida contends that the statute is only one aspect of its broader adoption policy, which is designed to create adoptive homes that resemble the nuclear family as closely as possible. Florida argues that the statute is rationally related to Florida’s interest in furthering the best interests of adopted children by placing them in families with married mothers and fathers. Such homes, Florida asserts, provide the stability that marriage affords and the presence of both male and female authority figures, which it considers critical to optimal childhood development and socialization. In particular, Florida emphasizes a vital role that dual-gender parenting plays in shaping sexual and gender identity and in providing heterosexual role modeling. Florida argues that disallowing adoption into homosexual households, which are necessarily motherless or fatherless and lack the stability that comes with marriage, is a rational means of furthering Florida’s interest in promoting adoption by marital families.
Florida clearly has a legitimate interest in encouraging a stable and nurturing environment for the education and socialization ofits adopted children. It is chiefly from parental figures that children learn about the world and their place in it, and the formative influence of parents ''Florida also asserts that the statute is eationally related to its interest in promoting public morality both in the context of child rearing and in the context of determining which types of households should be accorded legal recognition as families. Appellants respond that public morality cannot serve as a legitimate state interest. Because of our conclusion that Florida’s interest in promoting married-couple adoption provides a rational basis, it is unnecessary for us to resolve the question. We do note, however, the Supreme Court’s conclusion that there is not only a legitimate interest, but "a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality, and its observation that “[un] democratic society legislatures, not courts, are constituted to respond to the will and consequently the moral values of the people.”
We also note that our own recent precedent has unequivocally affirmed the furtherance of public morality as a legitimate state interest. It extends well beyond the years spent under their roof, shaping their children’s psychology, character, and personality for years to come. In time, children grow up to become full members of society, which they in turn influence, whether for good or ill. The adage that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” hardly overstates the ripple effect that parents have on the public good by virtue of their role in raising their children. It is hard to conceive an interest more legitimate and more paramount for the state than promoting an optimal social structure for educating, socializing, and preparing its future citizens to become productive participants in civil society–particularlywhen those future citizens are displaced children for whom the state is standing j~loco parentis.
More importantly for present purposes, the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging this optimal family structure by seeking to place adoptive children in homes that have both a mother and father. Florida argues that its preference for adoptive marital families is based on the premise that the marital family structure is more stable than other household arrangements and that children benefit from the presence ofboth a father and mother in the home. Given that appellants have offered no competent evidence to the contrary, we find this premise to be one of those “unprovable assumptions” that nevertheless can provide a legitimate basis for legislative action. Although social theorists from Plato to Simone de Beauvoir have proposed alternative child-rearing arrangements, none has proven as enduring as the marital family structure, nor has the accumulated wisdom of several millennia of human experience discovered a superior model. Against this “sum of experience,” it is rational for Florida to conclude that it is in the best interests of adoptive children, many of whom come from troubled and unstable backgrounds, to be placed in a home anchored by both a father and a mother." [citations removed throughout]
From Lofton v. Kearney, 93 F.Supp.2d 1343
It was three posts worth of typing.
Tradition alone cannot serve as a rational basis, else the state could refuse any change at all.
Demolished by research. I could accept that in the absence of evidence, but not when it’s been countered by uncontraverted research.
Didn’t think of this one, but I believe that’s an impermissible criteria because of the First Amendment.
No biological impossbility: the kids exist. Question was who can raise them, a task clearly not biologically impossible for same-sex couples.
Killed by research.
This is the closest call. But as with “tradition,” if the state is permitted to define its own moral code, then what would be off-limits for that code? It’s an open-ended claim.
I do think a less-onerous policy that provided for kids to not be exposed to a succession of short-term romantic or sexual partners of the foster parent would pass muster, but that criteria would be applicable against straigh foster parents as well.
Killed by research.
Critical. Absent factual contradictions, I’m obligated to accept the state’s claims. No research, no contradictions.
I think the next time a gay person asks you if they can make a baby, you should say “no”.
Yes indeed. The same freedom that allows NPH to have a child also allows the Duggards to have as many children as they want. Its fundamental.
Seems to me if you want to keep gays from reproducing, you should encourage social acceptance of homosexuality, so gay teens can casually adopt that lifestyle instead of spending years or decades trying to conform and getting into hetero breeding relationships.
And it used to be “parsenogenesis” until they gayed it all up!
THAT is funny.
The problem I see with such a law indicates the problem with much anti-gay legislation - it is almost impossible to define what homosexual is for legal purposes. You can have laws (like Colorado) preventing homosexuality being afforded legal protection, and you can have laws, such as those struck by Lawrence with prohibit actions (note I am not saying such laws are constitutional, but that they can be written) but it is much harder to enact a law that isn’t vague which says homosexuals cannot do X or Y.
Sodomy?
Sodomy?
In many cases in these “homosexuals can’t adopt” hearings, doctors testify on behalf of the State that there are studies showing that the optimal parenting is one father/one mother. You’re willing to go so far as to reject that testimony (rightly so, I agree), but not on sodomy? And you still allow for the massive amount of deference to the legislature to allow the “procreation” argument to win the day for same sex marriage. While I’m thrilled that we have found something we can agree on, I’m hoping it’s just a first step into your acceptance that sodomy laws and laws forbidding same sex marriage likewise cannot meet the rational basis test.
Gay couple’s can’t spawn, it’s a biological law. Human laws are beside the point. They can adopt other people’s children or mate outside their gender preferences, and I see no problem with either so long as they are as sane as the average heterosexual couple, not exactly a high bar to jump.
Geeze, you don’t have to ask me for sodomy TWICE.
Everything OK at home?
Testimony that says “There are studies?” Let’s see the studies. I’d absolutely change my mind if there’s a credible study that says one-man-one-woman is demonstrably better than other options. Where’s that study?
As to sodomy… I’d have to think about it, but off the cuff (I was going to say ‘off the top of my head,’ but when the subject is sodomy dumb pun opportunities should be avoided if possible) I’d say that I’m now having trouble identifying a state interest.
Hamlet and Rhythmdvl, if you need to continue your hijack, open a separate thread. It is no longer acceptable in this thread.
Further, if I encounter either of you badgering another poster, demanding that that poster express a personal belief when they have not chosen to offer one, you will be Warned for harrassment.
[ /Moderating ]
So how you doin’?
In the case I quoted earlier, the Court stated: “[T]he question of the effects of homosexual parenting on childhood development is one on which even experts of good faith reasonably disagree. Given this state of affairs, it is not irrational for the Florida legislature to credit one side of the debate over the other. Nor is it irrational for the legislature to proceed with deliberate caution before placing adoptive children in an alternative, but unproven, family structure that has not yet been conclusively demonstrated to be equivalent to the marital family structure that has established a proven track record spanning centuries.”
If you’d like a quick laugh, one of the “experts” who testified in these cases is none other than George Reker, he of “rentboy” and “long stroke” fame. You can read about some of the other “experts” (like Lynn Wardle) testimony in this brief filed by the “Liberty Counsel”(warning .pdf).
While I think it’s clear that the vast majority of social scientists have agreed with your and mine conclusions (and many courts), I think you are seriously underestimating the right’s ability to find “experts” to support their preconceived notions, even in court testimony. While same sex marriage is certainly getting a lot of press, there are parts of this great country that are still wanting to stop homosexuals from raising children that need to be fought.
Good to hear.
Suddenly whether or not courts allow or should allow gay people to be parents is a hijack of a thread titled “should gay people be allowed to spawn”?
Really?
Unless, of course, one is a gay man and the other is a lesbian. 
We have had a perfectly adequate solution for this for centuries until liberals fucked it all up. Gay people stay closeted and have children with spouses that are unaware of their proclivities and then go to public bathrooms to have anonymous sex with strangers. Then when they are about to be outed they commit suicide and the families pretend like it never happened. Not that everyone does this, mind you. Some become Priests because they can’t deal with their latent homosexual desires and then instill the guilt in others so that they’ll remain in the closet and we can all pretend that such nastiness does not exist.
I like that there’s a gay parenting thread in Great Debates which is solely piss-taking. We’ve come just far enough for this.
I’m not sure why there’s any censure of the obvious piss-takers. They’re playing underling demons’ advocates!
How are we “underestimating” the right on this?
Seems the court you mentioned uncritically accepted the evidence of the “experts” when rendering its decision.
Perhaps because of that the folks in the recent Perry case were prepared. This was a big case, as huge as we have seen in the US on this subject, and the best the defense managed were two expert witnesses. Those witnesses were then shredded on the stand and to some extent even backed up the plaintiff’s case. Judge Walker’s decision noted the utter lack of expertise of the experts to the point of making it laughable.
That is the best the conservative right can come up with. Huge case, lots of money backing them, a country of 350 million people and they could only find two experts who weren’t even experts on this?
Color me unimpressed.