A Stitch in Haste

Electing to parent and assume full responsibility for a child not one’s own is one of the most noble decisions made in a lifetime; it is respected by many, considered by some, made by few and approved for fewer still.
–In the Matter of John Doe and James Doe

There’s actually not much to parse in the recent trial court ruling that Florida’s plenary ban on gay adoption violates that state’s constitution. It’s an eminently accessible decision that laypersons can and should read if they’re interested in the issue.

There are only two hasty stitches that I can see. First is the fact that the case was primarily decided not on the right of qualified gays to adopt children, but rather on the right of children to be adopted by qualified gays:

A law such as the blanket ban on adoptions by homosexuals infringes on the foster child’s right to be free from undue restraint and to be expeditiously placed in an adoptive home that serves the child’s best permanency interests. Indeed, a law that subverts judicial process and imposes on the court the burden of taking action harmful to the child should be immediately suspect because the injury it imposes contradicts the legislative purpose and constitutional basis of the child’s having been taken into custody by the State in the first place.

Gay adoption is fundamentally different from gay marriage for precisely this reason. As the bigots like to say: It’s all about the children.

There was never much of an adoption follow-through from the waves of bigot amendments; “adoption is next” never materialized outside of the illiterate-infested wastelands of Oklahoma and now Arkansas. And it will likely be very difficult for any future push for gay adoption bans to survive a court challenge on the simple truth, accepted by all but the most rabid bigots, that even adoption by gays is better than foster care.

Second, the bulk of the decision is not so much a legal analysis as a survey article on the state of the research on gay parenting generally. And the conclusions are stunning:

The Department argues Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) is rationally related to Florida’s interest by protecting children from the undesirable realities of the homosexual lifestyle. However, as thoroughly summarized in the Findings of Fact section of this Final Judgment, the foregoing is, frankly, false.

More:

The quality and breadth of research available, as well as the results of the studies performed about gay parenting and children of gay parents, is robust and has provided the basis for a consensus in the field. Many well renowned, regarded and respected professionals have reduced methodologically sound longitudinal and cross-sectional studies into hundreds of reports.
…
These reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.

Anyone and everyone who checks their religion at the door and analyzes the issue objectively and professionally reaches the same inevitable conclusion: Gays can be just as good parents, and are just as likely to be good parents, as straights — period.

The question therefore becomes: Will those courts, most notably in New York and Washington State, that have already meekly cowered, or are tempted to do so in the future, behind the so-called “procreation defense” of gay marriage bans willing to embrace this conclusion that is “so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise” and toss the absurd rationalization into the dustbin of history? Or will they continue to worship the false god of “deference”?

Stated differently: Will it or will it not truly be “all about the children”?

The case is In the Matter of the Adoption of John Doe and James Doe, Citation Redacted (11th Fl. Jud. Cir., Juv. Div., Nov. 25, 2008) (PDF – 53 pages)

Previously:
–Florida Gay Adoption Ruling: Too Early to Comment
–PSA: New Report on Gay Adoption
–Who is “Shutting Down” Catholic Charities?
–Will the “Black Adoption” Controversy Spill Over Into Gay Adoption?
–Will the Bigots Also Distort “Happy Kids” Research?
–Linkfest: Two Gay Rights Victories (Oklahoma anti-gay adoption law struck down)