Florida Supreme Court takes up gay adoption advocacy case
04.22.2009 4:00pm EDT
(Tallahassee, Florida) The Florida Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments as to whether a committee of the Florida Bar Association can present arguments challenging the state’s ban on gays adopting children.
Florida law allows gays to serve as foster parents but not adopt. The law is considered the most repressive of its kind in the country. But a Miami judge ruled in November that there is “no rational basis” for prohibiting gays from adopting children.The Florida Department of Children & Families and the state attorney general’s office , backed by Gov. Charlie Crist (R), appealed the gay-friendly ruling to the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami.
In January, the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors voted to allow its Family Law Section to file “a friend of the court” brief in support of the gay-friendly lower court ruling. But a conservative group of attorneys challenged the right of the board to intervene in the case. The lawyers are represented by Liberty Counsel, which regularly fights LGBT issues across the country.
The Bar Association, on the other hand, argues that the board should be allowed to present its arguments, saying that the board is a voluntary section of the Bar and does not necessarily represent the full membership of the Association.
The issue of whether the ban on gay adoptions is constitutional will likely ultimately end up before the Supreme Court as well.
Until then, the lower court ruling permitting gay adoption will apply only to the case that was before it at the time, which involved Martin Gill of Miami who sought to adopt two young brothers he had cared for as foster children since 2004.
The boys had been placed with Gill temporarily after he was approached for help by a state child abuse investigator. When the three became attached, so Gill sought to adopt the boys.
In November, Gill and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union in October asked Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman to overturn the ban on gay adoption and award him permanent custody.
An attorney appointed by Lederman to represent the children said in a report to the court that the children refer to Gill and his partner as “dad” and that Gill should be granted the adoption.
The Florida Department of Children & Families and the state attorney general’s office argued the ban should be maintained. The position had the support of Gov. Charlie Crist (R) who said he has no plans to have the law repealed.
The Florida legislature adopted the law banning gay adoption during Anita Bryant’s infamous anti-gay crusade in 1977. The bill’s sponsor in the state Senate told a local newspaper at the time that the law was intended to send this message to lesbians and gay men: “[We] are really tired of you. We wish you’d go back in the closet.”
In 2004, a federal appeals court upheld Florida’s ban on gay adoption. In a written ruling, the court rejected a challenge by four gay men to the law.
“We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate, such as the current one over the compatibility of homosexual conduct with the duties of adoptive parenthood,” wrote Judge Stanley Birch.
“The state of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who ‘engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity’ and we have found nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment.”
The following year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal. Attempts to repeal the law have failed several times in the Florida legislature.




As a Gay therapist, the literature does not support statements that claim GLBT parents are less effective parents dues to their sexuality. The Florida policy is not (nor has it ever been) based on good science. It is based on a tradition of oppressing sexual minorities and an overall posture of aggressive ignorance.
The “logic” of these judges astounds me! If they feel that it’s not “in the best intersts of children” to allow them to be adopted by gays why do they feel it’s perfectly fine for gays to be foster parents and care for these kids day in and day out? It’s ridiculous! If they are good enough to raise and nurture these children (often times practically from birth) than they are good enough to be their legal parents! I’m pretty sure most of these couples “engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity” while they are acting as foster parents, so what difference does it make if they are fostering the kids or actually legally allowed to be their parents?
The state of Fla wants gay foster parents around when it’s convenient for them and they need the extra homes for their overabundance of foster kids, but the minute the gays decide that they want the actual right to be responsible for these children, they state just can’t handle that. It’s idiotic! They don’t give a crap about the best interests of these kids because if they did they would allow them to be adopted by the people that have raised them and loved them and given them some kind of stability in their lives…their gay foster parents!
I love the fact that the anti-gay legal group is named “Liberty Counsel.” Worthy of the same irony is the fact that the anti-gay marriage group is named “National Organization for Marriage.” These bigots know how to lie, that’s for sure.
I agree Crist is a closeted gay, even though he’s now married. Anyway, we’re getting our rights and justices slowly but surely.
@KZ:
That, my friend, is a logical fallacy known as a non-sequitur (meaning “it does not follow).
And the evidence behind the determination you quoted is… uh… well, no one makes statements like that without proper evidence, right? Oh, wait. They didn’t. And the scary thing is they’re the decision-makers on policy.
@ Dr. Bob: What constitution are you referring to, because I have yet to see the US Constitution provide me with “freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equality, and as such certainly forbids discrimination.”…let alone the FL Constituion. I am not free to marry the person I choose, not free from undue taxation that we as gay people endure, not free to visit my partner in the hospital, to be called his next of kin, to receive social security benefits…not treated equally in the work force, can be fired for being gay….don’t even get me started on the pursuit of happiness and equality….and how dilusional do you have to be to think that gay men and women and especially our trans bro/sis are free from discrimination?
“We have found nothing in the Constitution that forbids a policy adjustment that says adoption by lgbt are not in the best interest?’ The Constitution itself protects the fundamental rights to freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equality, and as such certainly forbids discrimination. If straights can adopt, than so xN gays. It’s equality and rights of everyone. The very fundamental inalienable rights forbid inequality, or taking away constitutional rights. The court decision was constitutionally flawed, smacks of discrimination.
John, Do you mean the closeted gay REPUBLICAN party line Gov that can’t come out lest he be tarred and feathered?
You mean him?
“The state of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who ‘engage in current, voluntary homosexual activity’…”
And how does one make that determination? This statement is ridiculous.
Welcome to Florida. Our idiot governor wants to take back to the dark ages: children stuck in state care, the worst education system in the country, inadequate police and fire proctection, the list goes on and on. All in the republican name of lower taxes.
I’m utterly shocked that a religious zealot that is more often associated with Hitler than Jesus was able to mandate this law in the 70s and that her illogical reasoning is still being used today to defend this ridiculous, disgusting, horrific Florida ruling. Every time I think we’ve made a step in the right direction, I’m reminded just how far we have yet to go!