March 14, 2002

9:31 AM

Let him stay.Spend just one hour with the Loftons to understand why Florida's ban on gay adoption is wrong. This couple has taken in several HIV positive kids, but now that 14-year-old Bert, whom they have raised since infancy, tests HIV negative, the state of Florida considers him "adoptable" and is trying to find him a "suitable" (read heterosexual) adoptive family. Interested parties can send a letter to Florida officials in protest.
posted by whatnot (46 comments total)

Do they have nothing else to do in Florida besides take children out of loving homes? Thanks for the link and I will send a letter. I only hope it doesn't fall on deaf ears.
posted by ColdChef at 9:50 AM on March 14, 2002

Thanks for the link whatnot. My letter has been sent. Wonder what critical mass will be for this issue with an election coming?
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:55 AM on March 14, 2002

Great, yet another reason to be embarassed to live here. Letters to follow.
posted by groundhog at 10:07 AM on March 14, 2002

So fags are only "good enough" to take care of the "reject" children that nobody else wants. Disgusting. Discriminatory not only to 'mos, but to all hiv positive people.
Damn good reminder that Florida is in fact the Deep South.
posted by hummus at 10:08 AM on March 14, 2002

What a dispicable bunch of bureaucratic hubris.
posted by silusGROK at 10:11 AM on March 14, 2002

I tried to contribute some cash but it doesn't seem to like Canadian postal codes. (I've emailed them about it.)

Thanks very much for the link, whatnot.
posted by dobbs at 10:17 AM on March 14, 2002

Another thought: whatever happened to Anita Bryant? Where is she? What is she doing? Is she still belting out the Battle Hymn of the Republic?
Or maybe it's better to not know...
posted by hummus at 10:18 AM on March 14, 2002

Bert was in my friend's classroom and she said their family was amazing. It's extremely disappointing that Florida has imposed such a strict definition of what a family must be composed of.
posted by jumbosquid at 10:21 AM on March 14, 2002

Damn good reminder that Florida is in fact the Deep South.


Oooh no. Florida is, in fact, the far north. It's a very weird place. Kinda like the ancient Yankee Burial Grounds, where people from New Jersey go to die.

Well, that, and a rather large hispanic population, plus the Disney franchise.

Maybe Florida just isn't that easy to pigeonhole.

My letters are away, too. As a citizen of the deep south (Georgia), that was just too stupid for words.
posted by dwivian at 10:38 AM on March 14, 2002

hummus: she's still around.
posted by o2b at 10:47 AM on March 14, 2002

Oooh no. Florida is, in fact, the far north

Explaining Florida: From the state line down to Orlando, Florida is the South (interrupted by Tampa and Jacksonville). In Orlando, it turns into some out-of-left-field tourism mecca. Quickly, it turns back into the south until you hit Lake Okeechobee. Then you hit Palm Beach and that's all Jewish ex-New Yorker retirees. Fort Lauderdale is a mix of yuppies, retirees, Caribbean immigrants and working class folks. Miami is Cuba. The Keys are just weird.

So most of Florida IS the South. Just not all of it.
posted by owillis at 10:56 AM on March 14, 2002

For any other non-USA'ns who want to donate, I got this response from the ACLU:

Thanks so much for your support! Unfortunately, I have not been able to get our consultant (CapWiz) to modify the form since it is already set up. If you would like to contribute to the ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project, you
can send a check to

ACLU Foundation - LGRP
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

If you would like to make a credit card contribution, you can call Scott Stearns here in New York at 212.549.2596.
posted by dobbs at 11:07 AM on March 14, 2002

hummus and o2b, now I am going to have nightmares about Anita Bryant. I had forgotten she was from Florida too. Glory Hallelujah and pass the orange juice, indeed:

Anita said, "I made a stand not against homosexuals, as persons, but against legislation that would tend to "normalize" and abet their life-style, and would expecially afford them influence over our children who attended private religious schools.

This from a woman who tied for miss congeniality in the Miss America pageant.

Oh, and I screwed up before--Bert is only 10 years old. It is nice to see so many positive responses here, but I think I am preaching to the converted. I'm sure this post would be considered trolling over at Free Republic. heh.
posted by whatnot at 11:53 AM on March 14, 2002

but I think I am preaching to the converted.

no, you're not. i've never had an opinion on the issue until now. so thanks!
posted by phooey at 12:51 PM on March 14, 2002

actually, while i'm thinking about it, metafilter as a whole has been an incredible instrument in shaping my opinions on many, many things. i've gone from staunch conservative to middle-of-the-road (financially conservative with liberal views) in just two years! how's that for a tagline!
posted by phooey at 12:53 PM on March 14, 2002

Here I am, throwing myself out there, for all of you to flame.

Maybe it's wrong to pull a child away from people who he/she has known as parents for years.

But I believe that, as a same-sex couple, if you bring a child up in the world, and that child sees a same sex relationship as "normal," then you run into a danger of that child being seriously messed up later in life.

Perhaps if I were looking at this "family" and evaluating the options, I would not allow them to keep the child, either.

If there are no "traditional" couples willing to take in the child, it would probably be better to allow the child to be placed in a group home until a foster family can take care of him/her.
posted by schlaager at 2:33 PM on March 14, 2002

That depends on what your definitions of "normal" and "messed up" are. I think it is normal for loving homes to want to share that happiness with a child, and I think it is messed up to interfere with that relationship on such arbitrary grounds.
posted by whatnot at 2:44 PM on March 14, 2002

The only reason that a child would be messed up is because of society's treatment of his parents.

Why is this a big deal. My girlfriend and I are very normal people. We both work, pay taxes, plop down in front of the T.V. at night, vote, eat dinner as a family, and love our child.

Saying that a group home where a child would get minimal attention and love is better than a same-sex couples' home is crazy.

It all comes down to peoples' perceptions of the "gay lifestyle." Most people opposed to gay adoptions have this mindset that gay people are constantly having wild sex and are flaming queens who party all the time. I have news for you. Straight people have sex all the time and party all the time too. Those kind of people -gay or staight- are not trying to adopt children! Adoption takes commitment, time, and lots of money and patience.

This is supposed to be about the best interest of the child. That's all. A loving home is the best thing for any child.
posted by bas67 at 3:03 PM on March 14, 2002

But I believe that, as a same-sex couple, if you bring a child up in the world, and that child sees a same sex relationship as "normal," then you run into a danger of that child being seriously messed up later in life.

What is your basis for such a belief? You're entitled to believe whatever you want to, but if you simply say "I believe X" without giving any reason why you believe X, you're not going to convince anyone else of X.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:25 PM on March 14, 2002

Heterosexuality is not normal. It is merely common.
posted by bradlands at 4:37 PM on March 14, 2002

Heterosexuality is not normal. It is merely common.

Of course heterosexuality is normal, in the same way that having brown eyes is normal. That doesn't make blue eyes any less normal, because it is also normal for eye color to vary. It is just as normal for sexuality to vary.
posted by kindall at 4:45 PM on March 14, 2002

What is your basis for such a belief? You're entitled to believe whatever you want to, but if you simply say "I believe X" without giving any reason why you believe X, you're not going to convince anyone else of X.

The basis for my belief is the fact that I am a Christian and believe in the word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination, on the same level as murder and adultery.

It is not my goal to change the opinions of others, simply to state mine.

Of course heterosexuality is normal, in the same way that having brown eyes is normal. That doesn't make blue eyes any less normal, because it is also normal for eye color to vary. It is just as normal for sexuality to vary.

I wouldn't liken homosexuality to eye colour, more like grand theft auto. It's common, it's illegal in most countries, and God doesn't like theft.
posted by schlaager at 8:27 PM on March 14, 2002

I thought God called homosexuality an abomination on the same level as working on the sabbath and eating meat on Fridays.
posted by ODiV at 8:45 PM on March 14, 2002

Not eating meat on friday's is a Catholic thing. In Timothy, we read:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."(1 Timothy 4:1-3)

In the new testament, Jesus declares that "every day is the sabbath unto the Lord," when the pharasees got after him for his disciples picking grain to eat along the way to somewhere.

But, adultery is reiterated as an offense in Corinthians:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
posted by schlaager at 9:14 PM on March 14, 2002

Well, there goes the thread.
posted by solistrato at 9:21 PM on March 14, 2002

um, schlaager, biblical arguments don't hold a lot of water around here. Besides, Christ never said a thing about homosexuality. Which leads me to believe he found it to be just about as incidental as eye color. Then again, maybe you are trolling? I hope not.

No one raises kids in a vaccuum. Even if we continue to enforce dumb laws like this one in Florida, kids will still eventually encounter others of every race, creed and sexual orientation imaginable, be it in school, church or everyday living. And without intolerant adults to tell them otherwise, kids will also find these differences to be just about as incidental as eye color.
posted by whatnot at 9:21 PM on March 14, 2002

Well, there goes the thread.

yeah, I thought I heard a "whooshing" sound. *sigh*
posted by whatnot at 9:28 PM on March 14, 2002

I know biblical arguments are usually futile on this site. Just making God's opinion known, not forcing it down the gullet, as some would do.

Christ may never have said anything about homosexuality, or beastiality, for that matter. But God did, and Jesus said "I and the Father are one."

No, i'm not trolling or looking to pick a fight. Just trying to be a Christian in a world that rejects God and most of what he stands for.

Sorry about popping the thread, guys.
posted by schlaager at 9:46 PM on March 14, 2002

schlaager:

I hate bible verse wars but I give respect to anyone who can both condem someone for not living up to the literal word of the bible and live the literal word at the same time. In 1 Corinthinans 7 4 it says "for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife." 7:5 "So do not refuse these rights to each other....."

Do you agree with this verse as well?
posted by bas67 at 9:56 PM on March 14, 2002

If there are no "traditional" couples willing to take in the child, it would probably be better to allow the child to be placed in a group home until a foster family can take care of him/her.

i wish you were kidding. i was adopted by two great heterosexual parents. do i think the experience would have materially different if they had been homosexual? Absolutely not. No child is EVER better off in a group home than being raised by people that love him or her, regardless of their sexual orientation or any other arbitrary criteria. evaluating a person's morality or fitness for parenthood based on sexual orientation is as patently absurd as lumping together "all strawberry blondes", or "people who have a tendency to stutter when they talk" and evaluating their morality or fitness for parenthood based on that.

i hear your point of view all the time, because my own parents are Christian fundamentalists, think homosexuality is morally wrong, and have some very negative stereotypes about gay people. You're certainly entitled to believe what you want, as are they, but no one that studies the Bible comparatively and within a historical context could possibly believe that early Christians considered homosexuality a sin. There's too much evidence to refute that, and as someone already pointed out, the New Testament doesn't comment on homosexuality *at all*. The fact that you equate "adultery" with homosexuality is indicative of your own prejudices, and not reality.

My parents are homophobic and I know exactly why - they haven't studied the Bible outside of the very narrow Southern Baptist interpretations of it, and *the only gay person they know* is a kid I went to high school with that happens to be a bit of a fuck-up (which reinforces their stereotypes.) They've mellowed a little with age, and grudgingly admit that they love the show "Will and Grace", which as trite as it is, has opened their minds a bit. Their base fears and distate for homosexuality, are, however, based on their lack of understanding of original Biblical doctrine and environmental reinforcement of an interpretation that condemns homosexuality. Everyone around them thinks the same thing. It doesn't occur to them that their local Pastor may not know what he's talking about or that their pre-packaged Sunday School lessons may be more informed by the biases of the institutions and so-called scholars that put them together than by actual Christian doctrine.
posted by lizs at 9:58 PM on March 14, 2002

I hate bible verse wars but I give respect to anyone who can both condem someone for not living up to the literal word of the bible and live the literal word at the same time. In 1 Corinthinans 7 4 it says "for a girl who marries no longer has full right to her own body, for her husband then has his rights to it, too; and in the same way the husband no longer has full right to his own body, for it belongs also to his wife." 7:5 "So do not refuse these rights to each other....."

I'm not sure if this was talking in a "you can't deny me sex tonight because you're my wife" context, but I do believe that it implies that the very reason adultery is wrong is because you are not yours anymore, you are a smaller part of a whole.

I'm sorry, lizs, but you're way off base on at least one point. I quote a passage for the second time this thread, perhaps you could read it just to humor me:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

This verse came from the new testament, and clearly talks about homosexuals. I am definitely not advocating that we start putting gay people to death. That qhole casting the first stone thing, you know. What I am suggesting is that we take a closer look at our "open-mindedness" and decide if that's what God wants us to believe. People will skew truths around and say God hates you for this, God hates you for that. This is not so. God hates sin. Homosexuality is a sin, and so are a lot of other things.
posted by schlaager at 10:31 PM on March 14, 2002

Sorry to post again but i missed a part:

I give respect to anyone who can both condem someone for not living up to the literal word of the bible and live the literal word at the same time.

I'm sorry if it seems as though I am trying to condemn anyone. That is not the case.
posted by schlaager at 10:34 PM on March 14, 2002

schlaager - you just illustrated my point. It looks like you're reading from the NIV version of the Bible, which while presumably easier to understand than KJV, is even more removed from the original text. Take a look at this. (i'd post a more authoritative source, but I've seen this before offline, and this was the first online reference I found to it.) This is what I'm talking about when I say most people miss the historical context and don't understand what the original doctrine really taught.
posted by lizs at 11:00 PM on March 14, 2002

"All you need is love" (Lennon/McCartney Magical Mystery Tour Track 11: Chorus)
posted by yonderboy at 12:20 AM on March 15, 2002

For any other non-USA'ns who want to donate, I got this response from the ACLU

Further to this, if you are in Australia you can just fudge your postcode (add a zero in front of it); that allowed my VISA transaction to go straight through -- well, I got the "thank you" email/receipt combo no problem. I'll update here if I get news that my donation bounced somehow. Canadians and other non-USians might be able to get the same trick to work.
posted by sennoma at 12:25 AM on March 15, 2002

[offtopic]
Oh, and schlaager, it seems you're serious about your faith, so I'd just like to add my $0.02 to lizs' point. There are clear problems with choosing just one source for the Word of one's God, filtered many times as it has been through fallible human perceptions, and it behooves a person of real faith to buckle down to real scholarship and get as close as they can to the real doctrine. FWIW, Matthew 7:7-12. Especially verse 12. (KJV, that is.) :-)
[/offtopic]
posted by sennoma at 12:43 AM on March 15, 2002

schlaager - the Corinthians quote was addressed by lizs above, so I guess that would have you falling back on Leviticus for your "abomination" quote. Do you feel the same way about eating shellfish?

More to the point, perhaps, since this boils down to a religious argumant, would you support taking a child out of the home of two loving heterosexual parents who belonged to some other religion that you didn't approve of?
posted by tdismukes at 6:50 AM on March 15, 2002

Maybe it's wrong to pull a child away from people who he/she has known as parents for years.

Maybe? Schlaager, if the state is going to take the big step of removing a child from a home, it should be because of abuse, neglect, or other danger to the child. Having gay parents is not dangerous. This child has been with this couple since he was 9 weeks old. They are the only parents he has ever known.

But I believe that, as a same-sex couple, if you bring a child up in the world, and that child sees a same sex relationship as "normal," then you run into a danger of that child being seriously messed up later in life.

Messed up how? From understanding that there are many different kinds of families in the world? From seeing a couple that loves each other? From believing that judging a person based solely on their sexual orientation is shortsighted and wrong? Are you referring to that common myth, that gay parents produce gay children? That one has been pretty much disproved. If you don't believe the studies, consider that the vast majority of gay people come from heterosexual households. Clearly sexual orientation isn't learned behavior.

If there are no "traditional" couples willing to take in the child, it would probably be better to allow the child to be placed in a group home until a foster family can take care of him/her.

Bert has been in this home for 10 years. He has two parents and four siblings that love him dearly. Pulling him out of there would mean moving him across the country (the couple lives in Oregon now, but are still subject to Florida law regarding their foster kids) and away from his family. Why are a gay couple good enough to foster HIV+ kids that no one else wanted, but when they do such a good job that one of them no longer tests positive, the state no longer considers them suitable?

Schlaager, I am a Unitarian Universalist, and as such, I respect your individual religious journey and your beliefs, though I don't share them. But your religion is just that - yours - and has no place in making law. Morality is about how people treat each other, and not about who they love.
posted by herself at 7:10 AM on March 15, 2002

Schlaager, although I cannot agree with your view of homosexuality, I respect your ability to think that way.

However, I think we are getting away from a very important point: How can Florida defend this statute using a secular defense. Florida isn't allowed to make laws that same way the private citizens, like Schlaager, form opinions. I don't see how Florida can say that homosexuals make unfit parents without in some way relying on the biblical context of them being "unclean" or "sinners."

If you could somehow prove that the homosexual lifestyle was detremental to children (in the same way you could prove an alcoholic or drug addict lifestyle to be detremental), then Florida would have a case to prevent homosexuals from adopting kids.

Of course, myself, and probably most others here, believe that you won't be able to prove something like that because it is simply not true. As an athiest, it bothers me to see that Florida, as well as other states, implicitly rely on these religious biases when passing laws regarding homosexuals. I think objective observation and a mind free of preconceptions would allow these lawmakers to see that, in reality, these parents are loving parents, no matter their sexual orientation. The child should not be taken from the home because doing so subverts the purpose of adoption: finding a caring household for unwanted children.
posted by thewittyname at 7:28 AM on March 15, 2002

If every parent planning on having a child "the old fashioned way" had to go through the same level of scrutiny of their background, character and intentions as we adoptive parents, school crowding would no longer be a problem.

These men have committed themselves to raising these two children. They happen to be homosexuals. So what? Being a good parent has absolutely nothing to do with what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom.
posted by groundhog at 8:00 AM on March 15, 2002

If every parent planning on having a child "the old fashioned way" had to go through the same level of scrutiny of their background, character and intentions as we adoptive parents, school crowding would no longer be a problem.

I am a firm believer in such scrutiny.

To the others: i give up. I had no intention of this spiraling into a moral debate, I was simply stating my opinion, and backing it up with the accepted text of my faith's doctrine.
Have a nice day.
posted by schlaager at 9:54 AM on March 15, 2002

schlaager: "Maybe it's wrong to pull a child away from people who he/she has known as parents for years."... that'll be a definite, not maybe. Or are you saying "... except if those carers are gay."?

I have to say that your comments are offensive to me, as a gay father.

Why equivocate? It would be a better rule to say.."only loving, responsible parents can successfully raise children.." than "only loving, responsible heterosexual parents (of which the minimum must be two) can successfully raise children".

How would my child have been damaged if I was banned from 50:50 participation in her rearing?

Why shouldn't a same sex couple be seen as normal (please don't refer to scripture in response, only research)?

I have previously been slammed for going too much into this (see my previous comments ... ), but if you read the previous thread on gay parenting and would like more info, I am happy to elaborate further if necessary.

More importantly, in my work as a 'group home worker' (a.k.a. residential social worker) I have seen how brutalising the culture can be - even in the well-staffed, resourced childrens homes we have in southern England. Children's Homes like the one I work in cannot provide love: they work to provide care, stability and guidance, in a professional environment which aims to be homely. The one American girl I worked closely with ( a runaway from a USAF base ) flatly refused to go back to another children's home in the states, where she said she "would be bullied by the kids and harangued by the carers."

Caring people (whether fosterers, adopters or residential workers) should be allowed to do their job: we all get inspected and monitored, and the youngsters will always need access to independent visitors/ guardians.

I don't intend to post more on this, as I doubt many people will change their P.O.V.....we either believe in equality, or we don't.

- john (no name calling)
posted by dash_slot- at 10:07 AM on March 15, 2002

Why shouldn't a same sex couple be seen as normal (please don't refer to scripture in response, only research)?

The basis for my original statements were scripture. I see no shame in quoting God's opinions against those of man.
posted by schlaager at 11:20 AM on March 15, 2002

As a heterosexual father of one child with another on the way, I am deeply bothered by the suggestion that a child growing up in a loving, nurturing environment be taken out of that environment for something as trivial as this. If s/he were in an unloving or abusive environment, it'd be a totally different story. But there is no justification for what is happening in this case.
posted by michaelbrown at 11:50 AM on March 15, 2002

Schlaager, earlier you have said:

I am a Christian and believe in the word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination, on the same level as murder [...]

I wouldn't liken homosexuality to eye colour, more like grand theft auto.

What I am suggesting is that we take a closer look at our "open-mindedness" and decide if that's what God wants us to believe. People will skew truths around and say God hates you for this, God hates you for that. This is not so. God hates sin. Homosexuality is a sin, and so are a lot of other things.

I'm sorry if it seems as though I am trying to condemn anyone. That is not the case.

You consider homosexuality an abomination, a crime, a sin, something for God to hate. How can you say that you are not trying to condemn anyone? You are judging a couple who have been together for 18 years, who have raised 6 children (including the one who died) wonderfully by all accounts, who took in children that *no one* wanted and who are now leading healthy, happy lives. You said:

If there are no "traditional" couples willing to take in the child, it would probably be better to allow the child to be placed in a group home until a foster family can take care of him/her.

This child *has* a foster family with 2 parents and 4 siblings. He is happy, healthy, and loved. How can you believe that a group home thousands of miles away from the only family he has ever known could be better for him? These two men are loving, dedicated parents. They have sacrificed to care for and love children no one else cared about. Your *sole* problem with them is that they are gay. How would you feel about being judged simply on one aspect of yourself, for instance, your faith, without people knowing you?

I was simply stating my opinion, and backing it up with the accepted text of my faith's doctrine.

The basis for my original statements were scripture. I see no shame in quoting God's opinions against those of man.

That's the key, Schlaager - *your* faith's doctrine, not mine, and not necessarily someone else's. Your interpretation of the Bible may lead you to believe homosexuality is wrong. There are others who interpret the Bible differently, and still others whose faith is not based on the Bible. Not everyone believes that the Bible is the literal word of God. You may choose to believe whatever you wish, but don't pretend that you aren't judging these people. The actions you would take on behalf of Bert would in no way be in the best interests of the child - they would merely be the result of your own prejudice. Feel free to believe in a God that would rather tear a family apart than leave a child with his parents. Just don't blame me if my faith is about love, not hate; knowledge, not ignorance; inclusion, not exclusion; understanding, not dogma.

My faith calls on me to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person and justice, equity and compassion in human relations. That, and my own conscience and personal beliefs are where I draw my opinion from.
posted by herself at 12:04 PM on March 15, 2002

Schlaager: (How can you say that you are not trying to condemn anyone?)

Still no reply?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:43 PM on March 18, 2002