Butterfly Cauldron
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Thinking of the children, for real.
Another ray of sanity, this time out of Indiana.
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana’s Supreme Court let stand a ruling that allows unmarried couples, including those of the same sex, to adopt children through a joint petition that gives both partners equal custody.
In a 4-1 decision posted Friday, the high court refused to hear arguments in the case. That left in tact the April ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had overturned a lower court’s ruling that state law limits adoption to married couples and individuals.
“The court acknowledged that two people can create a caring, stable, loving home for children without being married,” said Patricia Logue, senior counsel for Lambda Legal’s Midwest office in Chicago. “Not only is this a decision that will keep our clients’ family intact, but this is a victory for the thousands of children in Indiana desperately in need of a caring home.”
Logue represented a lesbian couple from Morgan County whose 2004 attempt to adopt a baby girl was approved by a judge in one county but denied by a judge in another.
Attorney General Steve Carter had hoped the state’s highest court would overturn the 2-1 appeals ruling.
Carter’s aides did not return messages left Friday by The Associated Press
I'm not sure how friendly Indiana is to GLBT people, but this is hopeful. Children need love, stability, discipline -- those things can come from either sex. So long as both halves of a couple is capable of caring for a child, what they do in their bedroom shouldn't be relevant. Adoption can make wonderful families and children deserve that. (As the aunt of an adopted child, I speak with a little experience. It always amazes me how quickly we forgot she was adopted. She's just ours. She always has been, always will be. I think of all the other children that are in need of homes and think, please gods, let them find them. Let them find what Kady has. Gay, straight, bi, whatever, let those children find families that love and want them as much as we want her.)
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana’s Supreme Court let stand a ruling that allows unmarried couples, including those of the same sex, to adopt children through a joint petition that gives both partners equal custody.
In a 4-1 decision posted Friday, the high court refused to hear arguments in the case. That left in tact the April ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which had overturned a lower court’s ruling that state law limits adoption to married couples and individuals.
“The court acknowledged that two people can create a caring, stable, loving home for children without being married,” said Patricia Logue, senior counsel for Lambda Legal’s Midwest office in Chicago. “Not only is this a decision that will keep our clients’ family intact, but this is a victory for the thousands of children in Indiana desperately in need of a caring home.”
Logue represented a lesbian couple from Morgan County whose 2004 attempt to adopt a baby girl was approved by a judge in one county but denied by a judge in another.
Attorney General Steve Carter had hoped the state’s highest court would overturn the 2-1 appeals ruling.
Carter’s aides did not return messages left Friday by The Associated Press
I'm not sure how friendly Indiana is to GLBT people, but this is hopeful. Children need love, stability, discipline -- those things can come from either sex. So long as both halves of a couple is capable of caring for a child, what they do in their bedroom shouldn't be relevant. Adoption can make wonderful families and children deserve that. (As the aunt of an adopted child, I speak with a little experience. It always amazes me how quickly we forgot she was adopted. She's just ours. She always has been, always will be. I think of all the other children that are in need of homes and think, please gods, let them find them. Let them find what Kady has. Gay, straight, bi, whatever, let those children find families that love and want them as much as we want her.)
Labels: adoption, court rulings, homosexuality
Friday, August 04, 2006
This is going to end up before the Supreme Court before it's all over
If not this particular case, then one similar. That's the problem with having different marriage/civil union laws across the country. Those states that have outlawed them are going to say they don't have to recognize another state's union/marriage. Which is bullshit, because any straight couple married pretty much anywhere else, not just in another state, is recognized in this country -- provided they've got documentation. I mean, we don't go around telling Canadians they're not married when they come for a visit. Or the Brits. Or Africans. Or...well, anyone. So long as they're straight. Bastards. Although -- this current ruling is a hopeful sign. Until the appeal is filed anyway.
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that Vermont courts, and not those in Virginia, have exclusive jurisdiction over a case involving two women battling for custody of a child they had while they were in a lesbian relationship.
The unanimous ruling conflicts with a series of decisions in Virginia, where courts ruled the state’s anti-gay marriage laws controlled the case.
Justice John Dooley wrote that Vermont civil union laws govern the women’s 2003 separation and subsequent child custody disagreement because they were legally joined in a civil union there in 2000.
“This is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order,” Dooley wrote.
The bullshit Virginia is trying to pull gives lie to the "think about the children" line these guys always use. Yes, let's think about the children. How about this little girl who has known both her mommies all her life. How much good is it going to do her to cut one of them out of her life? For no reason? There's nothing here to indicate that the woman is abusive or neglectful or in any way not a fit mother. The problem is she's a mommy and oops, baby's already got one of those. Sorry. Thanks for playing.
“It’s a classic conflict between two states over same-sex unions,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lisa Miller-Jenkins, one of the women in the dispute. “The real question there is whether or not a state can have its own policy that does not accept same-sex unions or whether they have to accept the union of another state.”
And that's why it's going to end up before the Supremes. Because yeah, I think you do have to recognize other state's unions. It's legal in this state to get married at 16. So, if a 16 year old gets married here and then moves to somewhere where you've got to be 18 to be married, are they automatically single again? No. Because states recognize each other's straight unions. This has caused problems in the past, as in cases where 14 year olds ran off to Georgia to get married, against their parents wishes. It was a big deal in the news not that long ago and ended up with Georgia changing it's laws? Why? Because, historically, states recognize each other's marriages.
How hard is that, really? Of course, that doesn't mean the zealots are going to rule that way. Who cares that there are decades, maybe centuries, of precidents. Toss those out when they aren't convienent and say you're following the rule of law. Bah.
MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that Vermont courts, and not those in Virginia, have exclusive jurisdiction over a case involving two women battling for custody of a child they had while they were in a lesbian relationship.
The unanimous ruling conflicts with a series of decisions in Virginia, where courts ruled the state’s anti-gay marriage laws controlled the case.
Justice John Dooley wrote that Vermont civil union laws govern the women’s 2003 separation and subsequent child custody disagreement because they were legally joined in a civil union there in 2000.
“This is a straightforward interstate jurisdictional dispute over custody, and the governing law fully supports the Vermont court’s decision to exercise jurisdiction and refuse to follow the conflicting Virginia visitation order,” Dooley wrote.
The bullshit Virginia is trying to pull gives lie to the "think about the children" line these guys always use. Yes, let's think about the children. How about this little girl who has known both her mommies all her life. How much good is it going to do her to cut one of them out of her life? For no reason? There's nothing here to indicate that the woman is abusive or neglectful or in any way not a fit mother. The problem is she's a mommy and oops, baby's already got one of those. Sorry. Thanks for playing.
“It’s a classic conflict between two states over same-sex unions,” said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which is representing Lisa Miller-Jenkins, one of the women in the dispute. “The real question there is whether or not a state can have its own policy that does not accept same-sex unions or whether they have to accept the union of another state.”
And that's why it's going to end up before the Supremes. Because yeah, I think you do have to recognize other state's unions. It's legal in this state to get married at 16. So, if a 16 year old gets married here and then moves to somewhere where you've got to be 18 to be married, are they automatically single again? No. Because states recognize each other's straight unions. This has caused problems in the past, as in cases where 14 year olds ran off to Georgia to get married, against their parents wishes. It was a big deal in the news not that long ago and ended up with Georgia changing it's laws? Why? Because, historically, states recognize each other's marriages.
How hard is that, really? Of course, that doesn't mean the zealots are going to rule that way. Who cares that there are decades, maybe centuries, of precidents. Toss those out when they aren't convienent and say you're following the rule of law. Bah.
Labels: children, court rulings, homosexuality, marriage
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
I thought Washington was a blue state?
Maybe that's unfair? Anyway, Wash. decided to uphold it's ban on same-sex marriage today. Not the most surprising thing, but I was hopeful it might have been struck down. At least from where I'm sitting in the Louisiana suburb of Jesusland, Wash. seems very progressive and with-it. Then again, if California won't legalize same-sex marriage, I don't know who'll be next.
Three of the justices in the majority, however, invited the state Legislature to take another look at the gay marriage ban’s effect on same-sex couples.
“Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state,” wrote Justice Barbara Madsen, with Justice Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander concurring.
The two other justices in the majority, James Johnson and Richard Sanders, agreed with the outcome but more actively opposed gay marriage.
Johnson wrote that the Legislature had “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts.”
So, would now be the time for same-sex allies in Washington to be petitioning for a change of laws? And what's this bit about promoting marriage for the children? Gay people don't have children? Really? That'll be news to the lesbian/gay families I know!
The sad part is the article mentions that there are 45 states that have gay-marriage bans on the books. Most of those statues have never been challenged. So, really, this is even sadder. So far, Mass. is the only sane state in the nation, but it's kind expensive to live there.
I know some people make the arguement that pushing for gay marriage is too polarizing going into an election, particularly one we really need to win to have any chance of stopping this free fall President Frat Boy has put us in. There's some merit to that line of thought, but. . .it's like suffrage, really. If we wait until the "right time" to push for it, we'll be waiting forever. Although, at the moment, I don't think there are any more court challenges going on, so having this happen now, instead of on the eve of the November elections, is probably a good thing. I'd hate to give the neo-cons any more reason to get their people to the polls.
As I've said before, I'm not really a marrying sort of girl myself. At least, I don't think I am. Who knows, that could change later. But denying someone the right to marry because they want to marry someone of their own gender? That's clear discrimination and shows an utter lack of knowledge of the actually history of marriage.
Three of the justices in the majority, however, invited the state Legislature to take another look at the gay marriage ban’s effect on same-sex couples.
“Given the clear hardship faced by same-sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the Legislature may want to re-examine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state,” wrote Justice Barbara Madsen, with Justice Charles Johnson and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander concurring.
The two other justices in the majority, James Johnson and Richard Sanders, agreed with the outcome but more actively opposed gay marriage.
Johnson wrote that the Legislature had “a compelling governmental interest in preserving the institution of marriage, as well as the healthy families and children it promotes. This conclusion may not be changed by mere passage of time or currents of public favor and surely not changed by courts.”
So, would now be the time for same-sex allies in Washington to be petitioning for a change of laws? And what's this bit about promoting marriage for the children? Gay people don't have children? Really? That'll be news to the lesbian/gay families I know!
The sad part is the article mentions that there are 45 states that have gay-marriage bans on the books. Most of those statues have never been challenged. So, really, this is even sadder. So far, Mass. is the only sane state in the nation, but it's kind expensive to live there.
I know some people make the arguement that pushing for gay marriage is too polarizing going into an election, particularly one we really need to win to have any chance of stopping this free fall President Frat Boy has put us in. There's some merit to that line of thought, but. . .it's like suffrage, really. If we wait until the "right time" to push for it, we'll be waiting forever. Although, at the moment, I don't think there are any more court challenges going on, so having this happen now, instead of on the eve of the November elections, is probably a good thing. I'd hate to give the neo-cons any more reason to get their people to the polls.
As I've said before, I'm not really a marrying sort of girl myself. At least, I don't think I am. Who knows, that could change later. But denying someone the right to marry because they want to marry someone of their own gender? That's clear discrimination and shows an utter lack of knowledge of the actually history of marriage.
Labels: court rulings, homosexuality, marriage
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Score one for the good guys -- for the moment, at least
Arkansas high court says state cannot ban gays from becoming foster parents
By ANDREW DEMILLO
Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child?s well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.
The court agreed with a lower court judge that the state's child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.
The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.
Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents.
The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality."
"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.
In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."
The court also said that being raised by homosexuals doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.
The ban had not been used since the lower court ruling in 2004, state Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said. She said the plaintiffs have not sought foster-parent status since then.
The department didn't know if any homosexuals have applied, she said.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.
-----------------
Finally, some signs of sanity. Of course, this has nothing to do with Louisiana, where you still cannot adopt/foster if you're gay. But if this ruling is upheld, it should be possible to change that here. Whoohoo.
Here's my thing -- I have a niece that I love. I mean, deep, viceral, no-holds-barred love. From the moment I saw her, the first moment I held her, something in me (that I was pretty sure didn't even exist) woke up. She's my child, even though technically she's my niece. She's also adopted. If I had wanted to adopt her, instead of my brother and his wife, I wouldn't have been allowed to. Because I'm bisexual, which in Louisiana is the same thing as gay. (And please, gods, don't get me started on how they're NOT the same thing. . .) Regardless of the fact that I'm educated, employed, healthy, white, middle-class with good values and the capacity to care for a child, I'd have been denied that chance. Because of the fact that, sometimes, I like to sleep with women. Do people realize how incredible unimportant who shares a bed is to raising a child? Isn't it more important to be loving, devoted, nurturing and accepting? Isn't it more important to impart good morals and values and train children to be decent, hard-working citizens who care about themselves and others?
My niece is a very lucky little girl. She's got two parents who love her, grandparents that completely adore her and an aunt that would literally change the world for her, if she needed it. And she'd have had the same thing if I'd been the one to adopt her. (Well, two parents eventually. One at the moment.) How different are the situations of most gay adoptive/foster parents? When a child joins a family, they're not just getting parents. They're getting grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings and cousins....how can you look at a couple, decide their sex life isn't up to par, and ignore the rest of what they have to offer?
By ANDREW DEMILLO
Associated Press Writer
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) -- Arkansas cannot ban homosexuals from becoming foster parents because there is no link between their sexual orientation and a child?s well-being, the state's high court ruled Thursday.
The court agreed with a lower court judge that the state's child welfare board had improperly tried to regulate public morality. The ban also violated the separation of powers doctrine, the justices said.
The board instituted the ban in 1999, saying children should be in traditional two-parent homes because they would be more likely to thrive.
Four residents sued, claiming discrimination and privacy violations against homosexuals who otherwise qualified as foster parents.
The justices agreed Thursday, saying the ban was "an attempt to legislate for the General Assembly with respect to public morality."
"There is no correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual," Associate Justice Donald Corbin wrote in the opinion.
In addition, the court said, the testimony of a Child Welfare Agency Review Board member demonstrated that "the driving force between adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."
The court also said that being raised by homosexuals doesn't cause academic problems or gender identity problems, as the state had argued.
The ban had not been used since the lower court ruling in 2004, state Health and Human Services spokeswoman Julie Munsell said. She said the plaintiffs have not sought foster-parent status since then.
The department didn't know if any homosexuals have applied, she said.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union represented the plaintiffs in the case. Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU in Arkansas, said she was pleased by Thursday's decision.
-----------------
Finally, some signs of sanity. Of course, this has nothing to do with Louisiana, where you still cannot adopt/foster if you're gay. But if this ruling is upheld, it should be possible to change that here. Whoohoo.
Here's my thing -- I have a niece that I love. I mean, deep, viceral, no-holds-barred love. From the moment I saw her, the first moment I held her, something in me (that I was pretty sure didn't even exist) woke up. She's my child, even though technically she's my niece. She's also adopted. If I had wanted to adopt her, instead of my brother and his wife, I wouldn't have been allowed to. Because I'm bisexual, which in Louisiana is the same thing as gay. (And please, gods, don't get me started on how they're NOT the same thing. . .) Regardless of the fact that I'm educated, employed, healthy, white, middle-class with good values and the capacity to care for a child, I'd have been denied that chance. Because of the fact that, sometimes, I like to sleep with women. Do people realize how incredible unimportant who shares a bed is to raising a child? Isn't it more important to be loving, devoted, nurturing and accepting? Isn't it more important to impart good morals and values and train children to be decent, hard-working citizens who care about themselves and others?
My niece is a very lucky little girl. She's got two parents who love her, grandparents that completely adore her and an aunt that would literally change the world for her, if she needed it. And she'd have had the same thing if I'd been the one to adopt her. (Well, two parents eventually. One at the moment.) How different are the situations of most gay adoptive/foster parents? When a child joins a family, they're not just getting parents. They're getting grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings and cousins....how can you look at a couple, decide their sex life isn't up to par, and ignore the rest of what they have to offer?
Labels: children, court rulings, foster care, homosexuality
