The Supreme Court made short work of Virginia's statutes.
Now we debate not interracial marriage, but gay marriage and gay adoption. And
we hear the same ``reasons'' we heard before.
Ironically, here in Florida we permit gay foster parents, but prohibit gay adoption,
although there are no statistics arising from the foster parent relationships justifying
a prohibition against those same gay people being adoptive parents.
An appeals court in Miami is expected to decide shortly whether the prohibition
against gay adoption is constitutional. And here we go again. We are told by the
state, much like Virginia before it, that homosexual relationships have higher rates
of psychiatric ``and other distressing conditions,'' that homosexual parents are
generally ``more tolerant of sexual activity by their minor children,'' that ``some
studies'' indicate homosexuals have worse relationship-stability rates than
heterosexuals (who have a 50-percent divorce rate themselves) and children of
homosexuals tend to suffer more from peer bullying, teasing and stigma than the
children of ``normal'' parents. And Florida, like Virginia before it, simply ignored
things like the reasons behind their statistics, such as the societal prejudices
against gays.
In 40 years, we will look back at Florida's opposition to gay adoption just as we now
look back at Virginia's opposition to interracial marriage. If only Florida had
remembered Virginia's mistakes.
Sandy Bohrer is a long-time activist on children's issues. He formerly chaired the
board of the Southeastern Division of Children's Home Society and served as vice
chairperson of Our Kids of Miami-Dade/Monroe, Inc.
Copyright © MiamiHerald & AMBIENTE MAGAZINE. Do not reproduce without citing this source.
Now we debate not interracial marriage, but gay marriage and gay adoption. And
we hear the same ``reasons'' we heard before.
Ironically, here in Florida we permit gay foster parents, but prohibit gay adoption,
although there are no statistics arising from the foster parent relationships justifying
a prohibition against those same gay people being adoptive parents.
An appeals court in Miami is expected to decide shortly whether the prohibition
against gay adoption is constitutional. And here we go again. We are told by the
state, much like Virginia before it, that homosexual relationships have higher rates
of psychiatric ``and other distressing conditions,'' that homosexual parents are
generally ``more tolerant of sexual activity by their minor children,'' that ``some
studies'' indicate homosexuals have worse relationship-stability rates than
heterosexuals (who have a 50-percent divorce rate themselves) and children of
homosexuals tend to suffer more from peer bullying, teasing and stigma than the
children of ``normal'' parents. And Florida, like Virginia before it, simply ignored
things like the reasons behind their statistics, such as the societal prejudices
against gays.
In 40 years, we will look back at Florida's opposition to gay adoption just as we now
look back at Virginia's opposition to interracial marriage. If only Florida had
remembered Virginia's mistakes.
Sandy Bohrer is a long-time activist on children's issues. He formerly chaired the
board of the Southeastern Division of Children's Home Society and served as vice
chairperson of Our Kids of Miami-Dade/Monroe, Inc.
Copyright © MiamiHerald & AMBIENTE MAGAZINE. Do not reproduce without citing this source.
www.ambiente.us FEBRUARY | FEBRERO 2010
OPEd | Gay Adoption | No good reason for the ban
by Sandy Bohrer
`Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''
A case in point is Florida's law prohibiting gay people from adopting.
We read, hear and talk about marriage and whether it should be restricted to a
man and a woman (not necessarily a ``straight'' man and a straight woman, but
a man and a woman), and the reasons for and against what is called ``gay
marriage.''
The reasons range from religious (the bible forbids it) to sociological (the
children of these marriages will be stigmatized, too sexually active and lack the
appropriate values shared by the majority of society) to political (the framers of
our Constitution never intended for there to be marriages between people of
the same gender).
The same is true when we talk about whether gay people should be allowed to
adopt.
If we look at our past, we see that too
frequently we mistook ``different'' for wrong
or immoral. Prejudice replaced reason. And
prejudice is replacing reason again.
For almost 200 years of our history in many
OPEd | Gay Adoption | No good reason for the ban
by Sandy Bohrer
`Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''
A case in point is Florida's law prohibiting gay people from adopting.
We read, hear and talk about marriage and whether it should be restricted to a
man and a woman (not necessarily a ``straight'' man and a straight woman, but
a man and a woman), and the reasons for and against what is called ``gay
marriage.''
The reasons range from religious (the bible forbids it) to sociological (the
children of these marriages will be stigmatized, too sexually active and lack the
appropriate values shared by the majority of society) to political (the framers of
our Constitution never intended for there to be marriages between people of
the same gender).
The same is true when we talk about whether gay people should be allowed to
adopt.
If we look at our past, we see that too
frequently we mistook ``different'' for wrong
or immoral. Prejudice replaced reason. And
prejudice is replacing reason again.
For almost 200 years of our history in many
| . |
| . |
| . |
| . AMBIENTE ONLINE STORE |
LGBT/Latino/Hispanic Civil Rights unitycoalition.org |
Fresh-Squeezed Paradise MIAMI RIVER INN miamiriverinn.com |
CLICK to Shop |
Wine Parties & Unique Catering |
| . 70's Inspired Purses GLOSSgear.com |
| . |
states, marriage was not simply restricted to a man and a woman, but
had to be racially pure. If you were white, your spouse had to be white;
if you were ``colored,'' your spouse had to be ``colored.'' It became
complicated, as who is ``white'' and who is ``colored'' was not so clear,
given the number of people whose parents were not racially ``pure.''
Seemingly intelligent people confidently justified these prohibitions,
claiming (1) the regulation of marriage is exclusively within the power
of the states, and thus immune from attack under the U.S. Constitution,
(2) the framers, those white men of the 18th century, several of them
slaveholders, never intended for there to be interracial marriage, and
(3) it was psychologically and sociologically inappropriate.
Lawyers for Virginia, asking the Supreme Court in 1967 to uphold its
prohibition against interracial marriage, pointed to ``scientific
opinions'' supporting the ``desirability of preventing such alliances,
from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural,
psychological and sociological point of view.'' They left out religious,
but the Virginia trial judge did not: ``Almighty God created the races
white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate
continents.'' And: ``The fact that he separated the races shows that he
did not intend for the races to mix.''
The children, it was feared, would be harmed by all these problems,
and by reason of being ``mixed race'' children. How could we inflict
such a fate on our children? Certainly they could never succeed in life,
such as by becoming president.
had to be racially pure. If you were white, your spouse had to be white;
if you were ``colored,'' your spouse had to be ``colored.'' It became
complicated, as who is ``white'' and who is ``colored'' was not so clear,
given the number of people whose parents were not racially ``pure.''
Seemingly intelligent people confidently justified these prohibitions,
claiming (1) the regulation of marriage is exclusively within the power
of the states, and thus immune from attack under the U.S. Constitution,
(2) the framers, those white men of the 18th century, several of them
slaveholders, never intended for there to be interracial marriage, and
(3) it was psychologically and sociologically inappropriate.
Lawyers for Virginia, asking the Supreme Court in 1967 to uphold its
prohibition against interracial marriage, pointed to ``scientific
opinions'' supporting the ``desirability of preventing such alliances,
from the physical, biological, genetic, anthropological, cultural,
psychological and sociological point of view.'' They left out religious,
but the Virginia trial judge did not: ``Almighty God created the races
white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate
continents.'' And: ``The fact that he separated the races shows that he
did not intend for the races to mix.''
The children, it was feared, would be harmed by all these problems,
and by reason of being ``mixed race'' children. How could we inflict
such a fate on our children? Certainly they could never succeed in life,
such as by becoming president.