Florida court strikes down ban on gay adoptions

Well,

I see another constitutional amendment coming. But this will be much harder to pass or even get on the ballot. But then again, I though the gay-marriage amendment would fail. So I'm not a good person to ask about this sort of thing.

Ironically, I care more about banning gay-adoption than I do gay-marriage. So this ruling strikes at one of the main reason I supported the gay-marriage ban. Ideally, Adoption would only be allowed by married couples, then there would be no need for a gay-adoption ban. But this would prevent singles from adopting too, and although I'm OK with that, most people aren't

I fully support giving a lot of the rights associated with marriage to gay couples. However, adoption is one that I am adamantly against! (Exclamation point). There is just no reason to place a child into a family structure that could in no way (under any circumstances natural or using any medical technology short of cloning) have produced a child of their own. And by their own, I mean the couple together, with the child being equally biologically related to both of them.

I think gay-couples should admit that they are not in the family making business and shouldn't be in the family raising business either.

Florida court challenges state's ban on gay adoptions -- OrlandoSentinel.com [This Post Continues after the jump...]

McCain and Obama Differ even as They Both Reject Gay Marriage

If Elected ... - Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage - Series - NYTimes.com

This is a fairly good read... and pretty balanced (from what I know about the candidates positions) [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Gay Marriage Is Issue Candidates Would Rather Avoid

Gay Marriage Is Issue Candidates Would Rather Avoid - America’s Election HQ

I think both candidates are smart to avoid this issue. It could only hurt McCain and according to this article, it's unknown if it would help or hurt Obama... so he'll avoid it... [This Post Continues after the jump...]

John McCain and Gays

Interesting... but not really surprising to me...

It's a myth that all Republicans are homophobic...

GayPatriot » An Emerging Pattern with John McCain and Gays [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Poll: 55% of Fla. voters support gay marriage ban

I don't want to focus on this, but it is news... I'm more concerned with how this being on the ballot effects turnout... I can't decide who it helps (if anyone)....

Right now only 55% support for the Gay Marriage ban, it needs 60% to pass, but that's 60% of the total people that actually vote one way or the other on it... some might think simply ignoring it is like voting against it. But I don't think that's true. If one person votes FOR it and no one votes against it, I think it passes.


Poll: 55% of Fla. voters support gay marriage | floridatoday.com | FLORIDA TODAY [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down

Pajamas Media » Golden State Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down: "

As a gay man who supports the ideas the institution of marriage embodies, I should be pleased. To some degree, I am grateful that this issue has received the attention it is getting, but I’m also troubled by the decision. To be sure, the court makes some valuable arguments about the merits of recognizing same-sex unions, but I believe those arguments should be made to the citizens of the Golden State, 62% of whom voted in 2000 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

But the court overstepped its bounds in redefining an institution which has long been limited to monogamous relationships between individuals of different genders. In a democracy, the people and their elected representatives should make decisions of this magnitude.

Read on for more great comments... [This Post Continues after the jump...]

California gay marriage ban ready for Nov ballot

Well Florida and California will both be voting on gay-marriage this fall. I'm not sure who that will help in the Presidential race this time, but similar amendment in 2004 supposedly help Bush get reelected.

Backers of Calif. gay marriage ban ready to submit petitions [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Same-Sex Penguin Book Censored

The book "And Tango Makes Three" has been removed from a school library in Virgina. Supporters of the book say it's removal is CENSORSHIP.

Well DUH... you Damn well better believe it is CENSORSHIP. And I'll fight with all I have to for the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to CENSOR what my child is expose to. Any parent that doesn't is not a fit parent.

Children simply do not need to be exposed to gay propaganda like this. I bet the other books in the library are all censored and age appropriate. Just because this is a cute illustrated story about a baby penguins doesn't make it age appropriate. I can all but garantee you that it was written with the intent to teach children that gay couples raising children is "normal" and "natural" and "acceptable".

This is the one area I will not compromise on. Gay Marriage is fine with me as long as the people vote for it and a court doesn't force it on us. Protection for gays in the work force, fine with me as long the the gay person isn't causing the business to loose customers. Gays in the Military, fine with me as long as codes of behavior are still enforced.

But Gay's adopting children? Absolutely NOT. Children can only be created by a male and female parent and I think they should only be raised by male and female parents. Adoption is not a right, it is a privilege and society has every right to set rules and conditions and to "pass judgment" on who can and who cannot adopt a child. Just like parents have the right to pass judgment on (aka CENSOR) what books their children should be exposed to.

The only possible exception to this is when one member of the gay couple is also the biological parent of the child. The state should never take a child away from his/her biological parent unless actual abuse is taking place. In this case, the partner of the child's biological parent should be given some parental rights to give the child a semblance of the stability of a two-parent household.

I don't know if "Tango" was related to one of the male penguin raising it, but it doesn't matter. Children are no capable of drawing that subtle distinction and should not be exposed to this stuff at their age. period.

FOXNews.com - Children's Book About Same-Sex Penguin Couple Causes Flap in Virginia - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Florida’s Marriage Amendment - Part 1

Ok it’s time for me to stake out a position on the Florida Marriage Amendment. Florida4Marriage.org has gotten enough signatures to get this proposed Amendment on the Nov 2008 ballot.

“Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”

As far as I understand it has passed all the usual challenges and WILL be on the ballot.

Let me first say that I did NOT sign the petition even though I had an opportunity to do so. The reason I did not sign is that I thought this was TOO STRICT. I firmly believe that we need a constitutional amendment to define “marriage” as “legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife”. This is to prevent the Florida courts from doing what was done in Massachusetts, which is to read into the constitution a meaning that was never intended. This is badly needed.

However, the 2^nd part of the amendment does not limit the courts; it limits “the people” as represented by their legislature. It would prevent any kind of “Civil Union” or “Domestic Partnership” from being created or recognized in Florida. Even if was passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor (and therefore supported by a majority of the people). This is what I think is too strict. Don’t get me wrong, all things being equal, I would only vote for representatives that would promise to vote against this sort of law. But do I have a right to stop a future majority from defining marriage as they see fit? (More on this later)

One reason I did not sign the petition is that I don’t think it will pass, mainly because it is too strict like I said. I even emailed the organization pushing for this asking them to rewrite the language of the amendment. Doing so would increase the chances of it being passed. We are in desperate need of passing a amendment to define marriage and control the courts, there is not as much of a need to control the legislature because it is more directly controlled by the people.

Even with the amendment, we are not fully restricting the will of the people in the future to pass any given law. They simply would be required to pass another amendment to allow Civil Unions or even “gay-marriage” if they have a 60% majority. In a way, this is good because it prevents the legislature from quickly passing a law like this without real public debate on the issue.

So I have to decide how to vote for this. On the one hand I think it is desperately needed to be a check on the power of the courts. On the other hand I think it is a little bit too strict in that it prevents a mere majority (50.1%) of voters from establishing “Civil Union” type relationships. However, it would not prevent a large majority (+60%) from doing so, and it would require enough time and public debate that it would only pass if people really supported it.

When I started writing this I was thinking I would end up saying I was going to vote against this amendment. Not signing the petition was in a way a “vote against” it, so I was leaning towards actually voting against it. But I’m not so sure now….

MarriageProtection.org

Opposition Groups
Florida Red and Blue

News Stories
Florida to vote on gay marriage ban amendment [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Maryland gets it right.

I haven't read the opinion yet, and probably won't because I have no one to really discuss it with, but from this and what I heard on NPR today, Maryland got it right.

This has nothing to do with weather gays SHOULD have the right to marry, it has to do with if the state constitution already gives them that right. Common sense and the state supreme court says it doesn't. No matter where you stand on this issue, I would hope you would agree that society has the right to make our own rules and laws. The constitutions of the US and the states protect a few rights from being infringed, but this protection was itself agreed to by a majority (or even a super majority) when the constitution was ratified. To come in decades later and reinterpret what basic rights the constitution protects is in my opinion a cop out, it short circuits the democratic process. I can guarantee you that the people who ratified the Maryland constitution never thought it would be used to force the acceptance of gay marriage.

Essentially I'm saying that the right to gay marriage needs to come from the legislature, not the courts. To claim that the right to gay marriage is "already in the constitution" is foolish and dangerous. If the language is that loose, then another group can find the right to just about anything "already" in the constitution. The abuse of "equal rights" or "equal protection" phrase is sickening in my option. There is nothing "unequal" about defining who one can marry. It is similar to defining who can park in disable parking places. I can't because I don't fit the definition of "disabled" but I'm not treated UNequally at all, because the definition is clear and applies to everyone equally.

Anyways, I'm rambling here so I'll just go to bed...


Maryland justices say no to marriage - Yahoo! News [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Illogical Court Ruling in Iowa on Gay-Marriage

Here we go...

I honestly don't get the judge's logic..

"Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons compromising such a couple are of the same sex."

However, I can "otherwise qualify" for anything if you remove the one requirement I don't meet.

For example, I can "otherwise quality" to vote in Iowa by being over 18, not being a felon, etc. But I'm stilled denied the right to vote in Iowa "by reason of the fact that " I don't live in Iowa. It seems to me that using this judge's logic, anyone that fails to quality for ANYTHING for only ONE reason can now be considered to qualify.

I could meet a woman tomorrow, fall in love his her and "otherwise quality" to marry her except for ONE little detail... I'm already Married. So using this logic, I would still be able to marry this person despite the fact that I fail one of the "qualification" needed to be allowed to marry. Why is the requirement to be "not already married" valid and the requirement to be "of opposite gender" not valid?

I can understand the judge or anyone disagreeing with the requirement, but nothing about it violates any "equal-protection" clause. Everyone has the SAME rules for who they can and cannot marry. No matter what you think I, no anyone else, has the absolute right to "marry a person of their choosing". The choice is limited by several things. First (in no particular order) the other person must also choose to marry me, 2nd the other person must not currently be married to someone else, 3rd the person must be old enough to get married. I see no reason why adding "the other person must be of the opposite gender" make the law "unequal". You may disagree with it, it may make you angry, but in reality it is simply just ONE MORE requirement that applies EQUALLY to everyone.

Can someone explain to me how a law that applies equally to everyone violates a "equal-protection" clause?

Iowa court rules same-sex couples can marry - CNN.com [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Gay and Christian?

This is nothing new, and I don't like the tone of this article. Nicoll ridicules the author of the book he's reviewing instead of just pointing out the book's weaknesses. While this makes for more entertaining reading (if you agree with the author) it doesn't do much for people like me trying to sort all of this out.

That being said, I still tend to agree with Nicoll and I don't understand how Christians can make homosexuality acceptable. Forgivable, yes, even forgivable without repentance, but not a "blessing from God".

Gay and Christian? [This Post Continues after the jump...]

House passes thought crimes bill

House passes hate crimes bill - Yahoo! News

Just the name "Hate Crimes" (or "thought crimes") makes my skin crawl. Making "hate" a crime is no different than making "love" a crime, and gay right activists are always saying that "love" should not be legislated, morality should not be legislated. But they forget those principles when it's convenient to.

Plus, liberals show their true colors when they refuse to add "military service" to the list. I know Vietnam vets were targets of "hate" crimes after then came home, I bet some peaceniks will target Iraq vets too. But NO!! They don't get any special protection like gays. Why not?

I'll tell you why, because even libs realize that protecting EVERY special group is no different than protecting NO special group. And we would be back to normal laws against violent crimes (regardless of the "hate" of the criminal) as we should be. [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Furor over Baptist's gay-baby article - Yahoo! News

Furor over Baptist's gay-baby article - Yahoo! News

The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary (Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr.) has incurred sharp attacks from both the left and right by suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

Original Post on this Blog...
Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?
(http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891) [This Post Continues after the jump...]

Married Couples Must Have Kids

I guess turn about is fair play....

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

But I think there needs to be a distinction between couples how should be able to have children, but cannot (or cannot safely) due to an illness, injury, or medical condition, and couples who can never have children together no matter how healthy they both are.

But I agree that, if society wants to, couples that merely choose not to have any children, could get less of the benefits of "marriage". In these cases I think that these benefits should be tied to "families" not "marriages" or "couples". But some of that is already true.

1 - Only people with kids get per child deductions
2 - Some insurance charge only a "single" or "family" rate where childless couples pay the same as large families but get less benefits.
3 - All tax payers pay for public schools but only people with children get any direct benefit from it.
4- Kids can eat free at some restaurants, but other family members or relationships are not eligible.

I'm sure there are more...


UPDATE:
Initiative ties marriage, procreation
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003558717_nokids06m.html

Gadow said the alliance would introduce two other proposals over the next few years, one that would prohibit divorce or separation by married people who have children together and another that would make having a child together the equivalent of marriage.

Now those ARE good ideas....

But how can you have a "Family" without children? I seriously don't think any type of "couple" is the same as a "family"... not if you want words to actually have an objective meaning beyond what people "want it to mean".

The gay-rights organization Equal Rights Washington also won't endorse it, pointing out that families come in all forms, some of which don't include children.

[This Post Continues after the jump...]