Introduction
The 1977 Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) is to outlaw homosexual adoption. Furthermore, to push them to the edge of the society. Back then, gays and lesbians were not only banned from adoption but other issues as well, for example, housing and employment and public accommodation (Winick, 2002). The real intent of the statute was to show homosexuals how unpopular they were in the society, reflected by prohibiting their right to adopt. In the words of state senator Curtis Peterson, to encourage homosexuals to “go back to the closet” (Bell, 2001).
The 1977 statute specifically made it clear that “No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual” (3 Fla. Stat. §63.042). In contrast, in the second section of the same chapter, it said that besides married couples, unmarried individuals may also adopt. This is an obvious discrimination since the second 2 section has given the right of everyone, even regardless of their marriage status of parenting, but right next in section 3, it took away that right from a certain group of people, gays’ in this case.
The Political History
Whether gays and lesbians shall have the right to adopt is always like a tug of war between Florida conservatives and democratic.
Before 1977, gays have the same right to adoption, regardless of their sexual orientation and also other basic rights to housing and employment passed by the Dade County Commission on Jan 18th, 1977. This action, along with other gay rights movements such as the founding of Metropolitan Community Church in 1970 and the speech from the Democratic National Convention in 1972, pushed the social movement of gay right almost to its peak.
As the idea of sexual orientation equality started to root, Anita Bryant, a woman devoted to broadcasting the harm of gays, was alerted. She and other conservative political activists found a coalition, Save our Children. Through the strategy of propagating gays as sexual dangerous to boys and outside help from North Carolina senator Jesse Helms, the coalition triggered the ban on gay adoption in 1977. Eventually, in 1977, the new statute added subsection (3) to the section 3, who shall adopt. Reubin Askew signed the bill and the Florida legislature passed the statute of prohibiting gays from adoption. Florida became the first state in the country that ban homosexual adoption.
Miami conservatives and the allies were back then, the biggest proponent of the 1977 Florida Statute; for their family values were tied up with the Christian religion and they believed a child should be raised by a father and a mother. Well-known individual allies include Anita Bryant, known for working against homosexuals. She was alerted by the gay rights movements and decided to protect the young boys from those “child molesters” (Herek, 1997). Herself, along with over thirty Florida conservatives, founded the coalition Save Our Children. Other individual supporters include state senator Curtis Peterson and the then-governor Reubin Askew; the former one was known as a big sponsor of the bill. Reubin Askew signed the bill on June 8th, 1977. He believed that gays should be banned on adoptions, also teaching in schools because everyone “ought to have the right to determine whether they want someone with that lifestyle living on their premises” (Alonso, Meeks, 2011).
The biggest opponent is the Dade County Democratic. At the beginning of 1977, the Dade County Commission of Miami, Florida outlaw the discrimination against homosexuals. Those democratic include Dade County Coalition for the Humanistic Rights of Gays led by social activists and gay right enthusiasts founded in 1977. They pointed out that “crime statistics show that society has more to fear from the heterosexual molester of female children than from the homosexual molester of male children”, which objected Bryant that gays were threats to young boys (Clarke, 1977). The Christ Metropolitan Community Church was also one of the opponents to the statute. They were founded in 1970 and instead of strictly submitted to the God’s will, they embraced the homosexuals. The 1972 Democratic National Convention was another of the important allies. During their 1972 presidential election, they supportively put the controversial topic of same-sex marriage onto the platform. They also held the very first open speech in Miami, promoting gay rights.
The Implementation of the Law and its’ Ineffectiveness
The procedure used to enforce the law is to the discretion of the Center for Family and Child Enrichment (“CFCE”) and the Department of Children and Families (the “Department”). CFCE is a Florida non-profit organization providing service to child and youth who has been abused or abandoned. They “contract with the lead agency for community-based care services”, for example, professional assessment to potential adoption households (Center for Family and Child Enrichment, Inc, 2014).
The department in Florida is a similar agency, providing more services than CFCE do including background screening of the applicants for adoption. In the famous adoption case, In re Gill, after the gay couple Gill and Roe filed a petition for the extension of the Doe brothers’ adoption, Dr. Brodzinsky, a psychologist experts in child clinical psychology, conducted an evaluation on the household. The assessment last for two days, during which the psychologist Dr. Brodzinsky observed how the brothers interacted with the parents and other members. Similar evaluations were done for several times to assess whether Gill and Roe were capable of serving as adoptive parents. Those experts, on behalf of the Department, evaluated that sexual orientation was not an implication of whether one is a qualified parent and the brothers share a well-connected relation with the family. Even though the evidence was in favor of the couple, CFCE still did not recommend adoption for the sexual orientation of the couple. Generally, the procedure of enforcement is conducted by both CFCE and the Department of Children and Families assist by the individual psychologist; the CFCE is the agency that makes the final decision of whether one can adopt. (In re Gill)
This seemed like an effective process, but the process of implementation in action was more complicated. The family court didn’t have much power and one’s sexual orientation isn’t obvious. This led to the ineffectiveness of implementation. Since single parent adoption has been allowed under the Florida Adoption Act, enacted in 1973, what if one of the unmarried gay couples, hides his or her sexual orientation, file the petition to adopt and later on, after the petition pass through, raise the child together with the partner and keep their unmarried status? (Florida Department of Children and Families v. Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G.). How does the state prevent that from happening if they are trying every effort to ban gay adoption? The answer is there is no way for the state to make sure no kid is adopted by a gay parent. On this aspect, the law is not perfectly effective.
The Underlying Idea of the Statute and its’ Bias
As mentioned previously, the 1977 Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) is to outlaw gay adoption and to push them to the edge of the society and show them how unpopular they were, reflected by prohibiting their right to adopt. The law was quite effective on this intent for it banned gay adoption on the moral level. Before the overturn case In re Gill, the ban on gay adoption was mostly religious. According to the Bible, gay is a kind of sin. This gave an excuse for those opposed gay adoption right; they claimed that gays were less qualified parents given their orientation. Even if they are equally qualified parents proven by the scientific evidence and evaluation, some people still “want gay adoption banned” for religious reason. By favoring the conservative religious view in the 1977 Fla. Stat. §63.042(3), the court has conveyed a very clear point that gays are not qualified as parents.
But this idea and the enforcement is biased. For example, in the In re Gill case, CFCE is making decisions based on the sexual orientation of the gay couple, even though evidence had proven by several psychologists that Gill and Roe are qualified caregivers. There is also another voice, saying that one’s sexual orientation may define the quality as a parent because gays suffer two to four times of depression in their lives and gay couples are more likely to break up. (In re Gill) But later on, the counter-evidence claims that straight couples may also break up and unable to provide the kid a whole family. It is obvious that most evidence is favoring the couple, but CFCE still refuse the grant the couple the adoption right. Later on, when the case went to court, the state called only two witnesses, clinical psychologist Dr. George Rekers, the founder of the right-wing Family Research Council and Dr. Walter Schumm, a Kansas State University family studies professor. Two of the witness both stood for the anti-gay position, that “run counter to the research of organizations like the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and others, who say there’s no problem with gay parents.” (Billman, 2008) In the case, there were merely two witnesses; that is not enough, not even mention both of them were on the same side religiously. The court failed to take opinion from all aspects and purposely not to regard the evidence proving Gill and Roe’s capability.
History of the Famous Overturn Case: In re: Gill
Now let’s go back to the history of In re: Gill. Ever since Fla. Stat. §63.042 was passed in 1977, by Anita Bryant, there have been several cases trying to repeal the ban on homosexual adoption. But none of them was successful until the case In re: Gill finally trigger the overturn of homosexual adoption discrimination.
On December 11, 2004, John Doe and James Doe, siblings, 4 yours old and 4 months old separately, were removed from their original family to the Florida state custody before a petition, Martin Gill took them in temporally. 20 months later, the termination of their biological parents made the Doe brothers available for adoption. Gill managed to continue the adoption and made it a permanent one with his same-sex partner Tom Roe but was denied by the court because of Gill’s sexual orientation. On January 18, 2007, Gill petitioned for the official adoption, and in October 2008, after a four-day trial, the court declared that the ban was a violation of Article I, § 2 of the Florida Constitution and granted Gill the adoption right. Finally, on September 22, 2010, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal held that Florida’s law banning adoption by gay people is unconstitutional because it has no rational relationship to the best interests of children. The state of Florida has decided not to appeal the ruling. (In re: Gill)
The Future of the Law
The topic of gay and sexual orientation has always been a controversial topic, especially in a country where there is a large number of Christians. We do believe that every individual should be treated equally without judgment and prejudice, but in reality, things can be completed. In 2015, a bill “allowing private adoption and foster-care agencies to turn away gay couples on moral or religious grounds passed the Florida House”. (Izadi, 2015) In Florida, adoption can be done via two kinds of agencies. One is the Department of Children and Families, the other is the private agencies. Florida has more than 80 private adoption agencies, most of them are run by churches. This means the adoption right for gays is again limited. Now we have a contradicted problem, do we sacrifice gay rights to respect religious rights, or do you ignore religious rights for gay rights? This will always to be controversial topic left to discuss. For now, the 2015 bill seems okay; we should temporarily keep it that way since it protects both gay rights and religious rights.
Works Cited:
“About Us.” Cfce, 2014, http://www.cfcecares.org/about1-c1x1t.
Bell, Maya. “Gay Adoption Ban Upheld by U.S. Judge.” Tribunedigital-Chicagotribune, Chicagotribune, 31 Aug. 2001, articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-08-31/news/0108310348_1_adoption-ban-gay-rights-project-children-first-project.
Billman, Jeffrey C. “FLORIDA’S CASE AGAINST GAY ADOPTION.” Orlando Weekly, Orlando Weekly, 18 Dec. 2008, http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/floridas-case-against-gay-adoption/Content?oid=2256857.
Clarke, Jay. “Gay Rights Fight Shaping Up in Miami.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 27 Mar. 1977, http://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/03/27/gay-rights-fight-shaping-up-in-miami/e4f596c1-f8e0-4785-b528-599077a478ba/?utm_term=.fd6cbe0e4a9c.
Cope, J. “FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellant, v. IN RE: Matter of ADOPTION OF X.X.G. and N.R.G., Appellees.” 22 Sept. 2010.
Herek, Gregory. “Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation.” Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation, 1997, psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html.
Izadi, Elahe. “Florida House Approves Bill Letting Adoption Agencies Refuse Gay Couples for Religious Reasons.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 Apr. 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/09/florida-house-approves-bill-letting-adoption-agencies-refuse-gay-couples-for-religious-reasons/?utm_term=.34a7736fc7ab.
Meeks, Mary, and Cristina Alonso. “Florida’s Gay Adoption Ban Ruled Unconstitutional: Anita Bryant’s Shameful Anti-Gay Legacy Finally Goes Down in Flames.”
Winick, Bruce J. “The Dade County Human Rights Ordinance of 1977: Testimony Revisited in Commemoration of Its Twenty-Fifth Anniversary,” Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Legal Issues 11 (2002): p. 1-10.
foundations of law and society 