Despite Manwhore’s continual insistence that gays are not discriminated against under the law, in fact they are. But it’s changing, slowly, for the better. The latest victory: Florida ban on gay adoptions ruled unconstitutional:

A Miami-Dade circuit judge Tuesday declared Florida’s 30-year-old ban on gay adoption unconstitutional, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two foster kids he has raised since 2004.

In a 53-page order that sets the stage for what could become a constitutional showdown, Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman permitted 47-year-old Frank Gill to adopt the 4- and 8-year-old boys he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas four years ago. A child abuse investigator had asked Gill to care for the boys temporarily; they were never able to return to their birth parents.

The article actually does a pretty poor job of summarizing the decision, however I linked to this one because it has a direct link to the actual decision. I suggest you read the decision (PDF file) before you post an “activist judge” response, and be prepared to support that position. For example, let’s look at the stipulated facts part (there’s several pages of them; I’m just selecting a few of them, which will obviously have my bias, so please feel free to use others to refute that bias if you so choose):

1. State adoption law expressly permits unmarried adults to adopt children. Fla. Stat.§63.042(2)(b).
2. The State makes over a third of its adoptive placements with single adults. The percentage of adoptions of dependent children in Florida that were by single parents for the year 2006 was 34.47%. Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s First Request for Production of Documents (“RFP Response”) 19H.
3. Florida recognizes that single and married people can make equally good adoptive parents. Deposition of Kathleen Waters pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310(b)(6) (“Waters Dep.”), at 70.

...

20. Unmarried couples are screened for relationship stability in the same way married couples jointly applying to adopt are screened.

...

24. Lesbians and gay men are not prohibited by any state law, regulation or policy from serving as foster parents. RFA Response 1.
25. DCF and/or its agents have placed children in long-term foster care with individuals known by DCF and/or its agents to be lesbians or gay men. RFA Response 2.

...

31. DCF agrees that gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents. Waters Dep., at 114.
32. The qualities that make a particular applicant the optimal match for a particular child could exist in a heterosexual or gay person. Waters Dep., at 88.

...

41. Where reunification with birth family is not possible, adoption-not guardianship-is the optimal goal for the child. Waters Dep., at 27; Gonzalez Dep., at 92.
42. Adoption is preferred over guardianship because it’s a cleaner legal resolution, it creates a forever relationship with the parents and stability. Deposition of Gay Frizzell pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.310(b)(6) (“Frizzell Dep.”), at 57. In the case of adoption, a child feels a sense of belonging, that a legal commitment has been made to him. Frizzell Dep., at 58.

...

44. John, who is 8 years old, and James, who is 4, had to be placed in DCF custody because their biological parents were not able to take care of them and extended family resources were already overburdened caring for the boys’ other siblings.
45. John and James were placed by DCF and its agents in foster care with Petitioner and Tom in December, 2004.
46. DCF and/or its agents were aware that Petitioner and Tom were a same-sex couple when they licensed both men to be foster parents.
47. John and James are now free for adoption. A final judgment terminating their mother’s parental rights was entered on July 28, 2006. James father’s parental rights were terminated on April 5, 2006. John’s father’s parental rights were terminated on July 25, 2006.

...

50. On January 2, 2007, DCF sent a letter to Petitioner informing him that his application was denied based on Fla. Stat. § 63.042(3).
51. Since their placement in December 2004 with Petitioner and Tom, DCF and/or its agents have deemed this placement to be in John and James best interests. RFA Response 25.
52. Petitioner and Tom are providing a safe, healthy, stable and nurturing home for John and James and meeting their physical, emotional, social and educational needs. RFA Response 26.
53. John and James are bonded to Petitioner and Tom. RFA Response 27.
54. But for Section 64.042(3), Fla. Stats., DCF would have approved Petitioner’s application to adopt John and James. RFA Response 30.
55. Ron Gilbert, the Guardian ad Litem for John and James, has stated his view that adoption by Petitioner is in the boys’ best interest.
56. One case worker supervising the family wrote in his review of Petitioner and Tom: “Petitioner and Mr. Roe have been model foster parents throughout the duration of the
dependency case involving this child. There should be more foster parents of this quality and caliber. If there were more foster parents like these foster parents, the system would work more smoothly!” Bates Nos. 2655-59.

The emphasized one is the key. The only reason the adoption was denied was because the proposed adoptive parent was gay. Not because he was unmarried. Because he was gay. This is fact stipulated to by the state.

Not sure why this isn’t in the stipulated facts, but it is also key:

Since the date the children were placed in care, neither the Center for Family and Child Enrichment (“CFCE”), nor the Department of Children and Families (the “Department”) received any applications from prospective adoptive parents seeking to adopt John or James until this petition in September 2006.

The rest of the brief reviews expert testimony regarding evidence about the stability (or lack there of) of homosexual relationships, and the impact on children (or lack thereof) of growing up in a homosexual household. IMHO, it appears that the state did a lousy job with its expert witnesses, but I haven’t seen the actual transcripts, just going by what’s in this ruling. For example, their experts ran into church/state separation issues, basing some of their positions explicitly on scriptural teachings. That’s not going to fly in a court of law. But if the state appeals (they say they will), there’s clearly a place to do so based on the interpretation of this evidence.

The findings of law are interesting. They basically go into the State’s interest in adoption as the ultimate appropriate solution in the absence of the potential for reunification, and the State’s legislative position on that issue. It also goes into the rights of the children, under equal protection, to have permanency. The argument appears to be that for the children to have a different legal status in this placement versus where they would be in a heterosexual placement, or being removed and re-placed (with concomitant harm from separation, after so many years in the current placement), violates the children’s’ equal-protection rights). When combined with the conclusion from the expert testimony that there is no evidence for harm to children in this demographic that is different than the potential for harm in any other demographic, the court ruled:

This Court finds Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) violates the Petitioner and the Children’s equal protection rights guaranteed by Article I, § 2 of the Florida Constitution without satisfying a rational basis. Moreover, the statutory exclusion defeats a child’s right to permanency as provided by federal and state law pursuant to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that John Doe and James Doe be declared the legal children of Petitioner. The Children shall from this day forth assume the names JOHN DOE and JAMES DOE and by such names shall be hereafter known. A consent to adoption by the minors’ birth parents is not required due to the prior termination of their parental rights. This Final Judgment of Adoption terminates all legal relationships between the Children and their former relatives for all purposes including inheritance. This Final Judgment of Adoption now and forever creates a filial relationship between Petitioner, JOHN DOE and JAMES DOE. This relationship is hereby created for all purposes including inheritance and applicability of statutes, documents and instruments.

It will be interesting to see whether the state legislature eventually accepts this, or moves to bar homosexuals as fosters, in response to this.