Skip to comments.Same-sex parents sue over North Carolina adoption law
Posted on 06/14/2012 3:47:22 AM PDT by markomalley
A civil liberties group filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday challenging North Carolina's prohibition against same-sex couples adopting each other's children.
The ban on so-called second parent adoptions violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian parents and their children, according to the complaint filed in Greensboro by the American Civil Liberties Union.
North Carolina is one of eight U.S. states where same-sex couples are barred from adopting children together and/or are not allowed to have one partner adopt the other's biological or adoptive children, according to the ACLU.
A December 2010 decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court held that state statutes allowed married couples, stepparents and individuals to adopt, but blocked gay or straight unmarried couples from doing so, said Chris Brook, legal director of the ACLU in North Carolina.
The state does not recognize same-sex marriages, and voters in May approved an amendment to add that ban to the state constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Same-sex parents sue
over North Carolina adoption law to gain right to homosexually abuse children
North Carolina is one of eight U.S. states where same-sex couples are barred from adopting children together and/or are not allowed to have one partner adopt the other’s biological or adoptive children, according to the ACLU.
Which states are the other 7 ???
Wait until they get the alimony and child support payments........LOL
I think that there are enough studies to show that children raised with homosexual partners do not fare nearly as well as children raised by a married father and mother.
Single-parent adoptions do not do well, either.
Homosexual adoptions are now explicitly banned by law in Russia. I think the law applies to single-parent adoptions as well.
When applying for adoption in most countries, and in most states, the prospective mother and father must be married, in excellent mental and physical health as determined by a psychologist and a physician, make enough money to support the child, have clean living quarters and living conditions conducive to the upbringing of children as determined by a social agency “home study”, and no criminal record.
I did not know that "Child Endangerment" was a constitutional right.
I think it can be proven that purposefully single parenting is destructive; much more so than singleness resulting from death or abandonment by a spouse.
Of course, an intact mother and father parenting unit is vastly superior to all of these.
I’m curious, does any state allow a man and woman who are living together, but not married, to adopt the other’s child? If not, then its ok, we have equal rights for all.
This is a ploy to advance the homosexual marriage issue on another front.
Notice that the lawsuit is in NC, where homosexual marriage was recently denounced by democratic vote, only to have O butt in.
“Single-parent adoptions do not do well, either.”
“I think it can be proven that purposefully single parenting is destructive; much more so than singleness resulting from death or abandonment by a spouse.”
As a general rule, I would only allow married couples (or the legal spouse of the parent of the child in question) to be able to adopt, but would make an exception in the case of close relatives of an orphan (for example, if both parents died when the child was a minor, I’d allow his widowed grandmother or single uncle to adopt), since the familial bond would already be present. If two people can’t commit to marriage, how can they be trusted to provide a stable home to a child? And how could someone who does not have the support of a committed spouse take on the awesome (using the correct meaning of the word, as opposed to its modern use to describe pop songs and pizza) responsibility of raising a child with whom they don’t have any prior familial relationship? One does not even need to get into the subject of the damage done to children raised by gay parents in order to adopt common-sense rules that facilitate adoptions by the type of parents that would benefit the child (i.e., married couples, or close relatives of the child’s deceased parents) and prohibit adoptions by persons who don’t meet such criteria.
Forgot to ping you to my post #10.
The APA (American Psychological Association) disputes this. There was also a recent blurb by a former president of said association that it is wholly controlled by the gay Gestapo. So I wouldn't take their opinion to the bank.
Remember that their goal is not to be like us, but to destroy what we have. Gay “marriage” is a mockery of God’s definition of marriage,
just as the mark of the Beast is a mockery and perversion of the Mark of the Lamb.
> theres not much difference in how kids turn out (adjusting
> for economic factors) whether it is a two-parent household
> or a household that only has one parent due to the death of
> the other parent.
Yes, I have seen articles on these studies. And they make sense. The same studies indicate that this does not apply to single-parent homes where the father was not known or seldom present.
But I think you already know that, from the context of your reply.
> If two people cant commit to marriage, how can they be
> trusted to provide a stable home to a child?
A refreshing breath of logic this morning. Thank you. Leftists seem to be incapable of thinking this way. Their revolutionary vision must be pursued even if it is illogical, contraindicated, or counter-intuitive, that is, not exhibiting “common sense”. To them, the End Justifies the Means, and the End for them is equality of outcome.
> One does not even need to get into the subject of the
> damage done to children raised by gay parents in order to
> adopt common-sense rules that facilitate adoptions by the
> type of parents that would benefit the child (i.e.,
> married couples, or close relatives of the childs
> deceased parents) and prohibit adoptions by persons who
> dont meet such criteria.
A child has ONE mother and ONE father.
calling a woman a “father” does not make it so any more than passing a law calling a pile of poop a “rose”.
this attack is not about “god”, this attack is about attacking normal by saying nothing is normal.
society rewards the institution not the individual.
These homosexual groups are trying to argue a fetish is the same as an institution and should be rewarded.
a woman is a father or a man is a mother.
There is no consideration as to a child having one of each mother and father. A father is generally replaced by the adoption by another man into father. no other.
This is just further argument that the judges and these attack groups need to be reigned in via a federal marriage amendment.
A single mother can always marry and the child be adopted by the man who marries her (or vice versa)
That said, it is in essence an attempt to achieve via law a biological impossibility.
It is worth noting that adoption is in fact a fiction created under the law. It is very narrowly constued. It is not a broad constuction issue like marriage.
ah... I remember the days before I got my “Truth Glasses”.
Fully agree with your entire post.
More evidence that the “homosexual rights” collectivistic victim group is essentially parasitical. It does not thrive on its own but has to live off the heterosexual norm(i.e., a man and a woman creating a new life either through traditional means or through IVF) to survive. Not unlike “free” medical care or “free” housing.