Cindy on the right and here "reason" on the left in the picture.
Cindy's previous boss in Miami was Janet Reno.....who shares her views on the subject.
Posted on 11/26/2008 1:00:28 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
A Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians for over three decades is unconstitutional, a judge here ruled on Tuesday.
“The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption,” the judge, Cindy S. Lederman of Miami-Dade Circuit Court, said in a 53-page decision. She said the law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Of course, the sovereignty of a state to decide its own laws is ignored by the disgusting press coverage.
If this law is to be changed, then it should be done via the people.
The LameStream Press virtually ignored the fact that 60+% of the electorate chose to BAN gay marriage in the state three weeks ago.
Florida ping.
Is there any question about how SCOFLA will rule on this?
Oh, wonderful!
So Thad & Chad can adopt a little boy and screw it up, just like their parents did to them!
The gay advocates of the Lawrence v. Texas decision said it was about consenting adults in private. When does a child consent to be raised in a same sex household by non-birth parents under an alternative lifestyle?
A law is insufficient. An amendment to the State Constitution is necessary. A state law can be ruled to be Unconstitutional under that State's State Constitution, but an amendment can't be so ruled. Hawaii learned this in 1993 and passed an amendment in 1996. California learned this and passed an amendment, both in 2008. Now it's Florida's turn.
ping
Daddy, why is there a brown stain on the FRONT of your undershorts?
Exactly my thought...
Well, fortunately the state is appealing this ruling. What is disgusting to me, aside from the ruling, is the fawning LSM coverage down here....it is all on the side of the gays who are being granted parental rights...NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING about the legal issues.
Shows me just how damn UNeducated the idiots in the press are. As well as the judiciary.
Using authority of similar kind I hereby rule that Cindy S. Lederman is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Her property is forfeit and her liberties rescinded.
I never ever watch our media at all in our state.
Now I am B/S to hear about this. We got o all the hard work to stop them being married and they just go shopping for a judge to adopt children.
So this homosexual judge can just basically get rid of a 30 plus year law and make another just because she doesn’t like it and it goes with her agenda.
This is an outrage.
Now the state is appealing and no doubt it will go to the supreme court but the problem is that the court is not exactly the most conservative and the two judges Christ has put on there are ones who were conservative anyway.
Now can anyone please anyone tell me why we go to all this trouble and hard work around this country of doing things the legal proper way when liberals and homo’s only go shopping for a judge.
why on this earth can we just not get a judge who we know will side with us and make a law stating that you have to married to be bale to adopt.
if there is a law stating you have to be ,married to adopt in our state then the homo’s will not be able to adopt thus they fail in their agenda.
It might be easier to do this instead of getting the constitutional amendment plus an amendment will be two years away and it means homo’s have got their hands on our children.
so again can anyone tell me why we don’t go judge shopping too?
so we have to get organized and have a group who will call the media everytime we see something we see as too liberal and one sided.
give me the phone numbers and surely we can get something done about the media’s coverage.
If they face a load of calls they will have to address this form both sides.
I would be more than willing to go on and explain my experience of going though the foster care and adoption programme with social services and tell everyone how bad it would be for a child to have two fathers or two mothers.
I know of not one child growing up who wanted that, we all wanted a mother and a father plus children should not be forced into a house with homosexuals
florida ping
so imagine a child being adopted by a homo , and for their life they will see mostly homo’s coming and going, they will be took to freak parades they have, they will be used a a trophy, the poor child will see two men sleeping in the same bed
THIS IS DISGUSTING AND SHAME ON THE JUDGE PUSHING HER AGENDA FROM THE BENCH
we need to get onto the media too
Enough...take her by force of impeachment.
Do it. Start now. What the heck are you afraid of. Your momentum is great on this do it now. over 60% said no to gay marriage DO THE SAME BY IMPEACHMENT.
Use the current attacks by hate filled bigoted gays over the prop 8 issue and harness the peoples obvious feelings and knowledge on this and spare children from parents who spoil what nature intended for them...a mother AND a father.
Cindy on the right and here "reason" on the left in the picture.
Cindy's previous boss in Miami was Janet Reno.....who shares her views on the subject.
A Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians for over three decades is unconstitutional, a judge here ruled on Tuesday
What is Un Constitutional about common sense, the law of nature and 2000 plus years of know history.
These judges are absolutely insane an so far off base from the Constituion they wouldn’t know the Constitution if it bitch slapped them....
Setting aside any homosexual or gay-agenda issues, doesn't the legislature decide what, if any, standards they want to set for adoption? Conversely, if adoption is now a de-facto right, then no standard can apply at all. You could be a convicted criminal living under a bridge and the adoption would have to go forward.
Of course, the real answer is that certain behavior is now protected, and any separating or limiting such behavior is verboten by judicial fiat.
Maybe there should be a law banning these major conflicts of interest.
Future parents.
It doesn’t make sense to have this rule if they are allowing gays to have foster children. They have to go full ban or nothing. What is the difference between allowing them to have foster kids and adoption? Is there any difference really?
It’s disturbing that our broken justice system puts young impressionable minds in the hands of sick and perverted individuals that have little or no regard for their own safety let alone the safety of the innocent.
Their trying to make the homosexual lifestyle normal, it’s anything butt! (ò¿ó)
doesn’t make sense and now we will have to get the law defined so these homo judges pro homo judges and liberal judges do not throw out laws.
I’ll be on to the legislature on Friday and will call all of them plus I hope others do the same.
How on earth can a judge with an agenda and a stake in this ruling have a say
fed up of liberals and homo’s going judge shopping, the verdict was there before the case was even taken with this judge.
It is time we get a law stating that only couples who are married can adopt now thus stopping homo’s getting children.
I feel so sorry for these children to live in a home seeing two men sleeping together and other men kissing etc in front of them.
They will be taken to freak parades etc
I was adopted back in the 1950’s and sure was glad I knew who to call mom and who to call dad without having to ask!!!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
I agree; the time to start removing some of these judges is long overdue. If they won’t stick to the law as written, then they need to find another line of work.
This is the first question that popped into my mind, too. The homo-activists have incredibly strong leverage if they are fostering kids in the first place. Kind of like the difference between Homo-"marriage" and civil unions, if you ask me.
My guess is that it was kind of a consolation prize to homos as a compromise for not getting full adoption rights. This seems to be the way of society now, giving ground to the enemy when the enemy loses. Look at Bush's stance - he opposes same-sex marriage but would be in favor of civil unions nationwide. Untenable.
Unbelievable. If you listen closely to any homo-activist, you will detect - what used to be subtly suggested - hints of their belief in the supremacy of homosexuality over heterosexuality. And the media and much of the uneducated public are swallowing this. Consider the implications of such a statement. What will the newly-empowered "state" be able to do in the "best interests" of children?
This is only the inception of things to come, if the tide is not miraculously turned back by some means.
yup!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.