Only in extreme cases, e.g., raging alcoholics or violent felons. It’s not like couples willing to be foster parents (as distinct from adoptive parents) are beating down the doors.
judging by the case details I’ve read, this is appalling. Basing this on sexuality alone is bigoted and ignorant.
I suggest that each couple be judged individually on the full range of suitability criteria.
At the point where homosexuality can be incontrovertibly shown to provide a worse fostering outcome that can never be balanced out by other positive factors, then yes, we probably need to have serious discussion about it. Until that is shown (I never expect it to be) let’s stick to a holistic approach to fostering suitability.
I’m not sure I get this. The SC said that people have a right to marry same-sex people. Do people have any sort of right to be foster parents?
In addition, the issue of whether same-sex couples make better or worse parents is not necessarily relevant to whether SSM should be legal. But it is relevant to foster parenting. Suppose hypothetically there was iron-clad evidence proving that, on average, same-sex couples make worse parents than opposite-sex parents. Would you think that’s relevant to SSM? To foster parenting?
I would disagree that children are better off in rich households than in middle-class households. But assuming that this were true, then I would think the same logic would apply.
What some people seem to be missing is that this judge is not a legislature making a law outlawing all same-sex parents (or middle-class parents) from being foster parents. He is only considering this one kid in front of him, and deciding if it’s in his best interest to be with Parents A or Parents B.
The child already was with Parents A for some time. They had just come in for a normal review when he sprung this surprise judgment on them, ignoring the entire process they were in there for entirely.
They have a right to equal protection under the law.
Wrong on the first part…and I wouldn’t be placing any strong bets on the second part if I were you. Remember the marriage clerk fiasco and how they supported her little revolution?
Not to mention that while every state permits same-sex adoption, those have almost all been by judicial decree rather than legislative act.
Right, there’s no debate here. Unless we get posters supporting the Judge?:dubious: Not likely.
Mississippi doesn’t allow gay adoption - but give the court case a few months.
This trial judge seems like he is just generally out of control.
We’ve had debates about same sex adoption quite recently, so there should be at least a half dozen posters who agree with the judge.
ETA: Even MS permits gay/lesbian individuals to adopt.
Okay. Let’s say, hypothetically, evidence comes in that gay couples are better at it.
What follows?
We debated that the last time this topic came up, but yes, it’s best to consider the general case rather than “homosexuals”. It’s almost certainly true that we can construct different groups of people, where one group is worse at parenting, on average, than the other group. And we don’t do anything about that now.
I’m not seeing it. At least as currently framed.
Off to the Pit.
I don’t think it’s clear cut. Marriage is conditional, you can only marry one other person, you can’t marry close relatives, you can’t marry minors in every circumstance, you may not be competent to marry, but SCOTUS has said same-sex isn’t an excluding condition. So I think the burden would shift to the state to show it’s reasonable to allow that exclusion for foster parenting.
There’s iron-clad evidence now that some foster parents are not as good as others but they still get to be foster parents. What would be needed is proof that same sex couples are bad foster parents.
In-crudding-feckable. :smack:
I don’t suppose there’s any chance of our usual legal and/or constitutional experts wondering into the Pit and spotting this?
But the question is if it’s a right altogether, similar to marriage. I think of foster parenting as some sort of good deed, similar to donating blood.
But I’m not a lawyer. RNATB is a lawyer and he said upthread that it’s an equal protection issue, and I can’t dispute that.
Per my earlier post, this is not a legislature passing a law, it’s just a judge ruling in an individual case. If you have an individual case in which there’s iron-clad evidence that the foster parents are not as good as others I’m pretty sure the judge can reject them on that basis.
[Of course, this is not to say there’s any sort of evidence that SS parents are not as good as OS parents.]
And, what debate would result?
“Yep. Yes. Correct. You’re right. Ok. Si. True. Absolutely. Ja. Yeah. Aye. I agree. You betcha!”
Where’s the fucking debate?
Again, not as good is not the standard. And the question isn’t about an individual case, it’s about using some alleged research to show that no same sex couples should be foster parents. I assume that’s what it is anyway, we don’t know what it is, or even if it exists, but there’s nothing mentioned so far that it applied to just this couple.
Is this a final order? Around here in family and juvenile cases only the final order is ever made public. I’m not sure what the type of case this was, but the final order in this case would likely be the adoption order or the guardianship order for the heterosexual couple.
But, I agree with the consensus: No way is this allowed after last summer’s decision. Even if it was shown that people from the northern part of State X are worse at raising children than those from the southern part, there is no way that someone from North X would be categorically rejected as a foster parent. It is absurd of its face. I wonder, however, if judges could use it as a factor.
For example: two heterosexual couples are petitioning for adoption. One has familial ties to the child, has a semi-stable house, but the father has a 20 year old felony conviction and lives in a shack. Second couple has no familial ties, but a very stable and suitable home, and no criminal record. The judge will use all of these factors in determining the appropriate couple to adopt.
Now suppose (and I am not saying these studies are valid) the judge accepts a study that shows that homosexual couples, in general, are worse at raising children than heterosexual couples. May he use that as a factor, in addition to those above, in his or her judgment? Could the judge also say that being from North X is a factor? I suppose it would have to do with the reasons underlying the study, but my guess is that homosexuality will not be allowed to be considered, studies be damned.
And now, in the opposite of a SRIOTD, the Republican Governor of Utah has weighed in:
Governor Herbert, a tip o’ the hat and a raise of the glass to you, sir! Well done.*
*Meant entirely sincerely.