Oklahoma Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law

Oklahoma Judge Strikes Down Gay Adoption Law

Saturday , May 20, 2006

OKLAHOMA CITY — A federal judge struck down a 2-year-old law that prohibits Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other countries and U.S. states.

U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled Friday the measure violated due process rights under the U.S. Constitution because it attempted to break up families without considering the parents' fitness or the children's best interests.

Gay-rights organization Lambda Legal had challenged the law on behalf of three same-sex couples.

"Gay and lesbian parents in Oklahoma can now breathe a collective sigh of relief because their relationships with their children are no longer threatened by the state of Oklahoma," said Ken Upton, an attorney in Lambda Legal's Dallas office.

One of the plaintiffs, Heather Finstuen, said the ruling will allow her and partner Anne Magro to focus on being parents to their 7-year-old twin girls rather than worrying about the adoption law.

"This is really good news for our family," she said. "It's a huge relief."

The couple said the law endangered the legal relationship established by a New Jersey court between Finstuen and her adopted daughters. The girls were born to Magro.

The ruling was attacked by supporters of the law, which was passed by the Legislature with bipartisan support in 2004.

"It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench," said Republican Rep. Thad Balkman. "It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,196316,00.html


This one is rough....

1. I don't think that adoption is going at such a heady pace in this country that we need to be shutting out potentially loving parents simply because of their sexual orientation.

2. On the other hand, I believe in democracy and state's rights...so if they want to ban homosexual adoption in Oklahoma...welll......I have a hard time....but I think they should be allowed.

3. They should not, however, be able to dissolve a parental bond like that. It differs from states not recognizing gay marriages from other states because states aren't required to recognize marriages of any sort from out of state.

-Kiamat Dusk

democracy, states' rights, freedom, blah blah blah...play second fiddle to human rights. Oklahoma is wrong about banning adoption for homosexual couples [period]

Democracy is overrated. It's simply formalized mob rule, described to me by one of my professors as being akin to two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. When citizens, politicians, and the media go on about the glory of "democracy", what they're actually talking about is liberty, fraternity, and equality.

In regards to your post, it is democracy itself that is denying the adopting parents liberty, fraternity, and equality.

~Ulrika~

Institutionalized discrimination should never be a state's "right." If people are worried about bad influences on children and feel that bigotry is an acceptable way to deal with it they could do a lot more good by not allowing fundamentalists to adopt (or breed!).

Well, I see your state subsidized socialist indoctrination went well.




You mean like separate bathrooms/locker rooms for men and women? And what are your views on Affirmative Action again?

-Kiamat Dusk

Are you retarded? Seperate bathrooms for men and women isn't discriminatory, but I'd be all for combining them. As for affirmative action, I think it should be done away with.

I guess it did! She completely trashed your pathetic little statement.

Ummm...I've used Ally McBeal style unisex bathrooms in other countries before...it's not pretty. And think of all the old flabby guys in the locker rooms...do you really wanna see the old flabby women, too? For every good looking woman, there tends to be a 15 ugly ones. *sigh*

But props to you for advocating the end of AA.

-Kiamat Dusk

When it comes to public restrooms I'd be happier if they were divided into "people who can aim" and "people who pee all over everything" so I could avoid the latter.

You might be surprised at how many women pee on the seat

+1

(Of course, usually it's the people who can't aim who think nothing's wrong with watering the toilet seat. Male or female, at that, from personal experience when I was younger and working as a bagger at a grocery store [one of the duties was restroom cleaning].)



I wouldn't.

It's from the hovering.

-Kiamat Dusk

Correct. I never sit on the seats of public bathrooms.

Briana Dawson

You can't catch anything from a public toilet anyway. And you might end up getting a urinary tract infection if you "hover" too much. There are also (in a lot of places anyway) toilet seat covers that you can use if you are living in fear of catching any STDs from toilet seats.

http://www.fitlinxx.com/Article.htm?id=468



http://www.cleanseats.com/toilet_seats/view/article-2.html

Joy, allow me to give you a bit of a reality check, I couldn't find a study on the topic at all through google, but social trends indicate that 'hovering is dangerous' is silly.

Most of Asia traditionally uses 'squat pots'... imagine your bathroom sink as an oval, then set it into the ground. If nothing else, it certainly gets your leg muscles working and trains you for public restrooms in bars. (hilariously, in Japan you'll often either face a squat pot, or an electric talking toilet with more buttons than your TV remote and a seat warmer)

Do you really think all of Asia ends up incontinent?

You could at least lift the seat!


Of course just installing a bunch of these would probably cut down on the problem quite a bit.
http://www.yankodesign.com/product_info.php?products_id=857

-Kiamat Dusk

Remember, toilets are way higher than "in the ground" and hovering is different than "squatting"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hovering+over+toilets+urinary+tract+infection

A non-issue like gay couples adopting or the rating of video games gets more interest from politicians than legislation to stop people using their cars so much (or buying more fuel efficient ones) or making sure everyone takes enough exercise to keep fit, because the latter would get them kicked out at the next election because it affects the majority, while the former will only affect a small percentage of the voters.

It doesn't matter that the environment and obesity are real issues that need to be tackled, and a teen seeing a digital breast or having two daddies isn't, they'll go for the issue that they can win with.

All this is why it is important for there to be a system in place to allow legislation to be thrown out even if it was voted on democratically.

Because those pieces of legislation are assanine.

So dwelling on digital breasts is not assanine? You make some point right there.

I don't believe I said that.

No. But that's what you implied. And if you didn't, then what was the point of your post?

Actually, I implied all of them were assanine.

I swear when I read this thread title, I thought it said "abortion" instead of "adoption". Who has ever heard of a "Gay Abortion Law"?

Anyway, whats going on here is similar to the pro & anti slavery laws that were passed in the decades leading up to the civil war.

The Constitution of The United States would disagree with you.