Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As you probably know by now, a state judge in Florida has overturned the state's ban on gay adoption. Money quote from the ruling:
"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. A child in need of love, safety and stability does not first consider the sexual orientation of his parent. The exclusion causes some children to be deprived of a permanent placement with a family that is best suited to their needs."
The case will be appealed, of course. And the reaction from the bigots has been predictable:
John Stemberger, chairman of a successful drive earlier this month to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Florida, called the ruling "classic judicial activism" and predicted it would be reversed on appeal."Everywhere in the law where children are affected, the standard must always be what is in the best interest of the child," said Stemberger, an attorney in Orlando. "What is stunning to me is that when it comes to dealing with gays, that standard goes out the window. Children do better with a mother and a father."
Do better than what? Better is a relative term and it requires that a comparison be made. Do children do better, on average, with a mother and a father than they do with a single mother or a single father? Of course they do. But surely they do better with a single mother or father, regardless of their sexual orientation, than they do in an orphanage or bouncing from foster home to foster home.
But even if this wasn't true, it shouldn't make any difference in our policy choices. It's also true that children are statistically better off with affluent parents rather than poor parents, with white parents rather than black parents, and with educated parents rather than uneducated parents. But that obviously does not mean that the government can prohibit poor, black or uneducated parents from adopting children.
This decision IS about what is best for the children. The plaintiff in this case has raised these two foster kids for 4 years, since one was 4 years old and the other a newborn. How could any sane person seriously argue that those children should be taken away from the only family they have ever really known? The only possible reason is bigotry. Nothing else makes sense.
Politics
Comments
Sane? I think that's the key point here - the folks who believe that these kids should be taken away from the only family they've ever known just aren't. They suffer from the delusion that if these kids are taken away from the gays, there will be straight couples lining up to adopt them. Or that all that's necessary is policies that will encourage straight couples to adopt them.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 27, 2008 9:44 AM
I'm sure that the blogs resident gay basher, Mr. mroberts will be along to hijack this thread.
Posted by: SLC | November 27, 2008 9:45 AM
Yes! A little good news after the heartbreak of the election results around gay marriage.
I love it when the bigots make that last argument. And by "love it," I mean... anyway.The brazen and unashamed hypocrisy is staggering, and a fine demonstration of the almost bottomless human capacity for doublethink/doublespeak.
Posted by: MPW | November 27, 2008 9:56 AM
DuWayne: or that being raised by homosexuals will somehow taint the children, which would be worse than having a problem childhood "in an orphanage or bouncing from foster home to foster home". The kids' actual welfare is less important than keeping them away from the gays.
Posted by: Morgan | November 27, 2008 9:57 AM
Stemberger has his ghead so far up the dark tunnel he will never see daylight again and as far as mroberts is concerned he is not worth the time it takes to type his name
Posted by: Ex Partiot | November 27, 2008 10:00 AM
While I haven't seen the ruling itself, I understand it was based entirely on state law. That means no federal question to take up. And the court specifically found that adoption would be in the best interest of the children.
Here's hoping the FL appellate courts leave it alone on review.
Happy Thanksgiving to all. And especially to the soon-to-be adoptive father in FL.
Posted by: Dan | November 27, 2008 10:01 AM
...and if a gay couple are abusing drugs or alcohol, that should be as much a block on their adopting children as it is for a straight couple. The ruling is to allow gays to adopt, not to require them to automatically succeed on adoption applications.
Posted by: Morgan | November 27, 2008 10:03 AM
Perhaps we should be thankful that so many religious folk are bigoted homophobes. After all, this homophobia and intrusion into matters of law where religion doesn't belong is part of the current backlash against religion. I know that I didn't start actively exposing the fraud of religion until one of my friends made some anti-homosexual comments based on his religion. The pwning of this individual was epic enough that he deleted his blog post after others joined in on the trouncing.
So, come on gay people! Take one for the team! By suffering from the discrimination and hate from these knuckleheaded twits, you are helping rid us of the scourge of religion for future generations!
Posted by: Dave | November 27, 2008 10:28 AM
Translation: "People like me will cause the children of gay couples to suffer a societal stigma."
Posted by: Gretchen | November 27, 2008 10:52 AM
As I understand it, the research isn't sufficient to make any claims about the quality of parenting provided by a homosexual couple - but if it DID make any claims, it'd seem to be more in the direction of "more parents = better", rather than something magical about a father and a mother.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | November 27, 2008 10:54 AM
What Standard of Review did the Judge apply to escape the Rational Relationship test? I don't see any chance of surviving appeal. That's a pity.
Posted by: kehrsan | November 27, 2008 11:17 AM
Is there an additional factor beyond pure bigotry here? There is a surplus of adoptable children - a surplus that dooms them to perpetual foster care. But isn't there actually a shortage of adoptable children who are _white_ AND _healthy_ AND _still babies_?
So, if gays can adopt, that just creates even more competition for the too-small supply of white, healthy, babies, making it even harder for heterosexuals to adopt the "perfect" babies they really want.
Bigotry is still almost all of the explanation, but could some cold supply-and-demand competition be resonating with the bigotry a wee bit, consciously or subconsciously?
Posted by: EK | November 27, 2008 11:23 AM
SLC, I'm no particular fan of mroberts, but your constant predictions of his behavior are growing tiresome... to say nothing of being self-fulfilling prophecies. Let the man speak for himself.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | November 27, 2008 11:28 AM
The judge specifically said that there is no rational basis for the law. As Dan said, this is a state court ruling based on the state constitution of Florida. I don't know enough about that constitution or the courts there to handicap an appeal.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 27, 2008 11:32 AM
EK said (out of context): "So, if gays can adopt, that just creates even more competition for the too-small supply of white, healthy, babies, making it even harder for heterosexuals to adopt the "perfect" babies they really want."
EK, I think such an argument would still need to be based on bigotry. Even if you don't want gays to adopt for purely selfish reasons - because you don't want the pool of Arian babies to be sucked dryer by an influx of new adopting parents; to single out gays would still be just as based on bigotry as if someone proposed *preventing* mixed-race couples from adopting, or something. In other words, it's a position based on nothing but arbitrary dislike for a particular group of people - no science or other informed reasoning in there at all.
And also, I would think that actually *adopting-heterosexual-parents-to-be* make up such a small portion of those people who don't want gays to adopt (when compared to, for example, religious people who take that position for religions "reasons"), that it becomes so negligible as to be not worth considering.
I think people who are annoyed by these conservative thinkers don't need to worry that they're somehow betraying free-market economics ;)
Posted by: Cai | November 27, 2008 12:02 PM
I'd love to know what these jackasses think of someone who was raised by a parent and grandparent of the same sex. They may think it less than ideal but I don't see them agitating to get children removed from such homes. Should such families be outlawed? I can't imagine they would think so. As Ed says, pure bigotry based on their obsession with sex.
Posted by: peaches | November 27, 2008 12:21 PM
Speak for yourself, man! The predictions are half the fun!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | November 27, 2008 12:25 PM
Ed:
"The case will be appealed, of course. And the reaction from the bigots has been predictable:"
including our in-house scold mroberts, no doubt.
Squiddhartha:
"SLC, I'm no particular fan of mroberts, but your constant predictions of his behavior are growing tiresome..."
Not nearly as tiresome as mroberts' rants. He does not present logical arguments, he attacks others and calls them names--and then whines when people do the same thing to him. His arguments are predictable and predictably wrong. I really don't care what he thinks, I just don't want to find threads full of his inanity and other peoples good faith efforts (many of them are) to debunk his idiocy.
Posted by: democommie | November 27, 2008 1:02 PM
So, if gays can adopt, that just creates even more competition for the too-small supply of white, healthy, babies, making it even harder for heterosexuals to adopt the "perfect" babies they really want.
That's only true if you assume that gays wanting to adopt share the preference for white, healthy infants that heterosexual couples exhibit. Which they may or may not. I would hope that perhaps the experience of being discriminated against might make some gay potential parents more sensitive to the fact that non-white non-infants face discrimination too.
My mother dedicated the last four decades of her life to promoting interracial and inter-country adoption, on the principle that *any* stable, loving home is better for a child than orphanages or a series of temporary foster homes. There are simply not enough homes available to "color match" every child to parents. My brother and I are Caucasian (our parents' birth children); I have two adopted sisters who came from Hong Kong (in 1958, when this was far less common) and my younger niece (my brother's daughter) is also from China.
It would also be a good thing if more people had the courage, or the humility, to adopt children who do not come to them as "blank slates" -- older children, sibling groups, and children with disabilities. Unfortunately I think there is a tendency to assume (if one hasn't thought it through) that a child with a previous history would somehow be less "yours." But as my mother used to say, "I am their REAL mother. Who gets up in the middle of the night when they're sick to their stomachs? That's REAL."
Posted by: Chrissl | November 27, 2008 1:37 PM
So, if gays can adopt, that just creates even more competition for the too-small supply of white, healthy, babies, making it even harder for heterosexuals to adopt the "perfect" babies they really want.
That's only true if you assume that gays wanting to adopt share the preference for white, healthy infants that heterosexual couples exhibit. Which they may or may not. I would hope that perhaps the experience of being discriminated against might make some gay potential parents more sensitive to the fact that non-white non-infants face discrimination too.
My mother dedicated the last four decades of her life to promoting interracial and inter-country adoption, on the principle that *any* stable, loving home is better for a child than orphanages or a series of temporary foster homes. There are simply not enough homes available to "color match" every child to parents. My brother and I are Caucasian (our parents' birth children); I have two adopted sisters who came from Hong Kong (in 1958, when this was far less common) and my younger niece (my brother's daughter) is also from China.
It would also be a good thing if more people had the courage, or the humility, to adopt children who do not come to them as "blank slates" -- older children, sibling groups, and children with disabilities. Unfortunately I think there is a tendency to assume (if one hasn't thought it through) that a child with a previous history would somehow be less "yours." But as my mother used to say, "I am their REAL mother. Who gets up in the middle of the night when they're sick to their stomachs? That's REAL."
Posted by: Chrissl | November 27, 2008 1:41 PM
The thinking behind only wanting babies seems to be that children that are run through the foster care system for long periods of time tend to be a little screwed up.
So they want to remove children from a stable environment to stick them back into a volatile one where the only constant in their lives is change on a regular basis.
Because it's better for them.
Nice logic. Bastards.
Posted by: JThompson | November 27, 2008 1:48 PM
It's Thanksgiving. Maybe the trolls are taking the day off.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 27, 2008 3:57 PM
Yup. It's more than a little frustrating how bigots frequently use the consequences of their own bigotry as evidence that their bigotry should prevail.
Posted by: Wes | November 27, 2008 6:19 PM
Actually, that's kinda what one of the expert witnesses for the state was arguing. In addition to banning adoption by gays, he also favored letting Native Americans adopt. I blogged (some) about it here. It was truly horrible--the state could not have gotten worse "expert" witnesses for themselves.
Posted by: Skemono | November 27, 2008 6:49 PM
Er, I meant, banning Native Americans from adopting. Whoops.
Posted by: Skemono | November 27, 2008 6:51 PM
MPW - "Yes! A little good news after the heartbreak of the election results around gay marriage."
I wish I could share your enthusiasm. Yeah, It's good news, but as Prop. 8 showed, even a court decision on constitutional grounds can be reversed given a sufficiently bigoted electorate. I'll consider it REALLY good news after the court battles are over AND the inevitable amendment process fails. On the up-side, it at least appears that the Florida Constitution is slightly harder to amend than California's.
Posted by: BobApril | November 27, 2008 9:15 PM
These people get crazier by the day.
I guess they assume everyone brainwashes any kid they have access to because that's what they'd do.
Posted by: JThompson | November 27, 2008 11:06 PM
Can it be shown that children are disadvantaged by being adopted by homophobic couples? It could be cynically suggested that the ban should be expanded.
Posted by: Ex-drone | November 28, 2008 6:45 AM
I just love how "activist" and "activism" is used as something of a slur by far-righters. Isn't activism considered not only to be the culmination of the most celebrated rights Americans - e.g., free speech and association and ability to shape their nation? Isn't activism the culmination of the very spirit of America? The basis for the patriotism? And what of right-wing causes? Is the ID movement not a case of activism? Or Prop 8?
I guess when the hated activists are literally pursuing the application of the Constitution, it's easier to turn "activist" into a slur than to call the activists unAmerican because in their activism they are acting in the very spirit of America. Oh, wait, they do that, too....
Posted by: Ron Brown | November 28, 2008 7:52 AM
I DIDN'T KNOW BY NOW! Sorry for shouting, but I only found out yesterday at Thanksgiving (how apropos!). This means so many things! [this is going to be an exclamation-heavy post, you are warned!]:
1. I live in Florida!
2. I was adopted and think it's a great gift!
3. I was outraged by the discrimination against Steven Lofton!
4. My FL-living brother and his partner have wanted children!
5. Now my mom can get off my case about having children, because Bro can legally do so and since he's oldest, it's his responsibility first!
Kidding aside, this is wonderful and I hope it sticks... !
Posted by: marnk | November 28, 2008 11:01 AM
To Cai at November 27, 2008 12:02 PM, congratulations! I believe you have just unearthed a new oxymoron: religious "reasons".
Well, new to me, anyway. From now on whenever I use the term the quotes are going in just where you put them. Many thanks for the "why didn't I notice that before?" moment.
Posted by: North of 49 | November 28, 2008 1:25 PM
A mate of mine in the Australian Federal Police remarked to me recently that the paedophile networks that the AFP has broken recently have yielded all sorts of people that you'd never think would be child abusers - respectable, solid community figures, long-married men, clergy, judges, bikies, you name it. A disturbing number had fostered children. In fact, there's only one identifiable group of males that don't figure in it, at all, ever.
It's gay guys with regular partners.
It would follow that not only should these couples be allowed to adopt if they want - they should be preferred.
Posted by: Dave Luckett | November 29, 2008 2:23 AM