Same-sex parents sue over North Carolina adoption law

[markomalley]

From Reuters:

A civil liberties group filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday challenging North Carolina's prohibition against same-sex couples adopting each other's children.

The ban on so-called second parent adoptions violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian parents and their children, according to the complaint filed in Greensboro by the American Civil Liberties Union.

North Carolina is one of eight U.S. states where same-sex couples are barred from adopting children together and/or are not allowed to have one partner adopt the other's biological or adoptive children, according to the ACLU.

A December 2010 decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court held that state statutes allowed married couples, stepparents and individuals to adopt, but blocked gay or straight unmarried couples from doing so, said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU in North Carolina.

The state does not recognize same-sex marriages, and voters in May approved an amendment to add that ban to the state constitution.

They sure have come a long way from "we just want to be left alone"

[Crescentinus]

The "we just want to be left alone" by homosexualists is nothing more than an idiotic cover for their agenda-driven drivel.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by markomalley

...They sure have come a long way from "we just want to be left alone"

Mega

"Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to give adults the children they want."

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atsAi...eature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOH...eature=related

_________________
"When activists ask for tolerance, they are implicitly admitting that there is something wrong with their behavior. After all, you don’t need to ask people to “tolerate” good behavior. Mother Teresa never had to ask for tolerance." – F. Turek, Correct, Not Politically Correct

[SamH]

"Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to give adults the children they want."

Excellent post.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

The "we just want to be left alone" by homosexualists is nothing more than an idiotic cover for their agenda-driven drivel.

I remember their making the "we just want to be left alone" claim back in the 1960s. People are leaving them alone, so one wonders why are we debating SS"M".
_________________
"Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up." ~ Old African proverb

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by sedonaman

I remember their making the "we just want to be left alone" claim back in the 1960s. People are leaving them alone, so one wonders why are we debating SS"M".
_________________
"Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up." ~ Old African proverb

I've seen homosexualists use that to try and silence our side. I responded to that by telling that so-called same-sex marriage has detrimental effects to children. After that, they got very angry and they lost their cool.

[rfournier103]

I would like to point out that there is a great difference between tolerance and acceptance.

Saudi Arabia tolerates Christians in their midst when they have to. To work in the oil fields, foreign heads of state on diplomatic missions, and American soldiers and marines when they need protection from Iraq. These people have no rights per se, but are allowed under very strict guidelines to enter the country, and perform a very specific task. As soon as that task is completed, they are expected to slink out as quietly as they came in. Usually they don't even get a "thank you" or a "thanks for comming." They're not wanted, but for one reason or another are grudgingly allowed for a time. Keep quiet. Don't cause any trouble. Don't be seen, don't be heard, and we'll leave you alone.

Where do I begin with acceptance? I'm okay, you're okay, we're all okay!!! A behavior, culture, or religion is seen as legitimate with no reprecussions whatever. No social disdain, backlash, threat of expulsion, bodily harm, or imprisonment.


I ask you what these people in North Carolina want? Do they want tolerance? Or acceptance?

When they ask for tolerance, it really annoys me when they expect acceptance.

[exnihilo]

Our recent approval of an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as being between a man and a woman and prohibiting all other domestic civil unions should make it very easy for the courts to find no merit in this case. But I might be underestimating the abilities of the judiciary to do damage to the social fabric and ignore the constitution.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by exnihilo

Our recent approval of an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as being between a man and a woman and prohibiting all other domestic civil unions should make it very easy for the courts to find no merit in this case. But I might be underestimating the abilities of the judiciary to do damage to the social fabric and ignore the constitution.

You are "underestimating the abilities of the judiciary to do damage to the social fabric and ignore the constitution."

Judge Walker, the homosexual who overturned Proposition 8 in California, did it by re-defining marriage this way:

“Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.”

If the starting point is not denying rights, what was the reason for his re-definition? He “cooked up” this re-definition specifically so he could reach the decision he wanted. So he did what was improper. Heaven forbid that a judge, any judge, would say something like, “The court cannot make a determination in this case because there is no legal definition of marriage, and cannot make such a determination until the people make one.” The corner he painted himself into, of course, was the people did define marriage via Prop 8. It just happened that it wasn’t the definition he preferred. The people preferred one definition, and he preferred another. Why should his preference prevail, since it was not based on any legal reasoning? It would be the same as if he were refereeing a football game and decided that a first down is only 9 yards for the team he favored and 11 yards for the team he didn’t, all in the name of “equality” and “fairness” of course.

Aside from the judge's exceeding his authority by re-defining marriage, where is the public purpose in this definition? No one has answered this question in this tread because there is none; only personal purposes. If we were to adopt his re-definition, there would be no need for marriage because any two persons could currently “live with each other, to remain committed to one another and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another and to join in an economic partnership and support one another and any dependents.” So there is no need for SS"M". And why it should be limited to only two seems arbitrary, to use the SS"M" advocates' line of reasoning.

Another point about rights. It is simply not possible to have a minimum government in a society with no social or legal norms about family structure, sexual behavior, and child-rearing. SS"M" is a creation of the state, and the state has to prop it up, which will require an expanding government, and when government gains power, individual rights suffer. The first to fall will be free speech. Canada already has a hate speech law along with an enforcement ministry. All this just for a small percentage.

[Denimguy]

The NC ammendment will certainly make it more difficult for a judge to rule in favor of this. I am originally from Iowa & it was one of the states that had legislation from the bench legalize gay "marriage". The district courts ruled in favor of this & the very next election all three judges that were responsible for that law were not retained. The public has to be involved and not complacent when it comes to politicians.

[sedonaman]

Originally Posted by Denimguy

... The district courts ruled in favor of this & the very next election all three judges that were responsible for that law were not retained. The public has to be involved and not complacent when it comes to politicians.

Good for Iowa. And dittos to your last

[JimR-OCDS]

If I'm understanding this correctly, a gay couple where one has children, either biologically or through adoption before the gay union began, dies. The children would be wards of the state instead of staying with the surviving partner? Hence the reason behind the law suit.

If the children's other biological parent is available, then of course the partner should have no rights to the children.

However, what if there is no other biological parent?

Seems to me the kids would be better off remaining with the surviving partner, than becoming wards of the state.

Maybe I'm missing something here.


Jim

[epan]

Originally Posted by SamH

Excellent post.

Yes, the ACLU does claim to be protecting the rights of adoptive children with this filing.