Florida appeals second district gay adoption

Gill is a landmark Florida court case that in ended Florida's year ban on adoptions by homosexuals. Over the course of a four-day trial before the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida in Miami-Dade County , both the petitioners and the state presented evidence relating to the best interests of the children involved as well as evidence related to the legitimacy of the ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians. McCollum wrote in Rekers was paid to meet with the attorney general's staff to prepare for depositions and to be deposed by lawyers for the adoptive parents. Disgraced psychologist George Rekers was labeled a "right-wing, religious-based" expert witness and rejected for months by state attorneys defending Florida's gay adoption ban. 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. In , at the peak of the anti-gay Save Our Children campaign led by Anita Bryant to repeal a Miami-Dade human rights law, the Florida Legislature enacted a law prohibiting adoptions by homosexuals.

Disgraced psychologist George Rekers was labeled a "right-wing, religious-based" expert witness and rejected for months by state attorneys defending Florida's gay adoption ban. There's a reason why he can't find credible sources. Gill Court Florida Third District Court of Appeal Decided September 22, , in favor of Gill and his partner, who sought to adopt two foster children they had parented since at the state's behest, thus striking down Florida's anti-gay adoption law. During the trial, Rekers testified that "gay people [are] mentally unstable and advised that the ban should be expanded to include Native Americans because, Rekers claimed, they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. Over the course of a four-day trial before the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida in Miami-Dade County , both the petitioners and the state presented evidence relating to the best interests of the children involved as well as evidence related to the legitimacy of the ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians. 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.

During the trial, Rekers testified that "gay people [are] mentally unstable and advised that the ban should be expanded to include Native Americans because, Rekers claimed, they are also at much higher risk of mental illness and substance abuse. Some observers believed the case would ultimately be decided by the Florida Supreme Court. Retrieved from " https: Here Petitioner qualifies for approval as an adoptive parent in all respects but one: Retrieved July 13, American Civil Liberties Union. I really do not think that we should have homosexuals guiding our children.