Florida Circuit Court Invalidates Gay Adoption Ban

"Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad, it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person’s ability to parent...The most important factor in ensuring a well adjusted child is the quality of parenting... More importantly, sexual orientation, solely, should not interfere with a child’s right to enjoy the accoutrements of a legal family... [T]his 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. [T]he exclusion forbidding homosexuals to adopt children does not further the public morality interest it seeks to combat. Based on this scenario, there can be no rationally related public morality interest differentiating in the State’s support of a homosexual’s long-term foster care relationship with a child and a denial of their legal relationship through adoption... The contradiction between the adoption and foster care statutes defeats the public morality argument and is thus not rationally related to serving a governmental interest. This Court finds Fla. Stat. §63.042(3) violates the Petitioner and the Children’s equal protection rights guaranteed by... the Florida Constitution without satisfying a rational basis. Moreover, the statutory exclusion defeats a child’s right to permanency as provided by federal and state law... Judge Cindy Lederman, Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida Juvenile Division, November 25, 2008

Governor of California Sees Same-Sex Marriage Happening Eventually

KING: You lost on another one, on Proposition 8. It was not your idea, but you support same-sex marriage. And the proposition banning same-sex marriage passed. Many would look at California, which is viewed as this progressive, open-minded state, and say, why? What happened?

SCHWARZENEGGER: You know, I think that the people of California just, again, have spoken on this issue, and they went against it, just like they did in the year 2000, when they voted against it in Proposition 22. And here they had a chance again. And you know, they had a very, very strong campaign, the pro-Proposition 8 people, and I think that the people that tried to defeat it did not have maybe as good a campaign or had as much money behind it, whatever. I think it is unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end, because I think this will go back into the courts, this will go back to the Supreme Court and all this, because the Supreme Court very clearly in California has declared this unconstitutional. It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This is -- this falls into the same category. So, I think that we will, again, you know, maybe undo that if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area.

KING: As a governor, from a policy perspective, are those couples who were married, same-sex couples who are already married in California, are they in jeopardy in any way?

SCHWARZENEGGER: No, not at all. No. It's just from now on. You know, it's -- there is no marriage between a man and a woman, until, like I said, the court determines (ph) it over or does anything about that.

KING: Is it a generational challenge, in your view, that maybe five or 10 or 20 years from now, it will be an easier issue?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, it's also -- it's not just easier or harder. It's just a cultural issue, also, because as you could see, because of the big turnout amongst African-Americans and Latinos, that had an effect, also, which they did not expect. So there's all kinds of other things. And I think the religious groups have done a really, you know, big campaign, a lot of them, you know, to support Proposition 8 and so on. And, you know -- so it's a very, very difficult thing.

CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, John King, guest host, interview with California Goverernor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Aired November 9, 2008

Constitution of the State of California

Article XI, Sec. 12. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect. Constitution of the State of California, 1849

Article XX, Sec. 7. No contract of marriage, if otherwise duly made, shall be invalidated for want of conformity to the requirements of any religious sect. Constitution of the State of California, 1879