Utha Gay's Role In Creating A Baby Girl

This case is relevant because the Family Law Act violated the same-sex couples’ equality right. The s.15 (1) of the Charter that protects dignity of individuals and provides equality to all people were violated in this case. The same-sex couples were not benefited under the FLA because of their sexual orientation. Further, sexual orientation discrimination is protecting under the analogous

The fate of where a child is placed is put in the hands of state social workers and judges. The guidelines for who can be a foster or adoptive parent can often become blurred when dealing with opinionated social workers that validate ability to be a parent with their own beliefs. Homosexual foster parents are often denied the right to adopt a child based on their sexuality. According to a survey done in 1999-2000 only 60% of adoption agencies would accept same sex couples applications (Paul). In 2007,

The individual or group that had their rights infringed were single as well as lesbian women who were denied IVF treatment because they weren’t married. In this case Leesa Meldrum’s rights were infringed. Leesa Meldrum was the patient of Dr John McBain, who’s a specialist IVF doctor.

In this case, Perry, the plaintiffs compiling of Kristen Perry and Sandra Stier, a same- sex couple, filed suit in federal court after being denied the right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They named the defendants Hollingsworth which consisted of California’s governor, attorney general, other state and local officials responsible for enforcing the California’s marriage laws. For the reason that Governor Schwarzenegger, and other officials not wanting to defend Proposition 8 that amended the California Constitution the federal District Court allowed ballet proponents to defend it. After it was deemed unconstitutional the original defendants decided not

Supreme Court stated that the “Homosexual Conduct” law of Texas was unconstitutional and the law violated the 14th Amendment Due process Clause. This Clause protects  the right to personal freedom in intimate decisions. The issue wasn’t "the right to engage in homosexual sodomy" but  "the right to privacy in the home" and another is "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex."

In the Chicago Tribune article titled “Florida’s puzzling case against gay adoptions” written by Steve Chapman argues that Florida’s government should give an opportunity to homosexual people to adopt children. Couple weeks ago the U.S Supreme Court hold out the policy which prevent gays and lesbians from adopting children in Florida. However, there a lot of side effects are generated by this resolution. Such as Steven Lofton, who has taken honor from the Children’s home society as an outstanding foster parent and dedicated himself to take care of the kids with HIV or AIDS full-time for the past decade. Despite how adequately suitable to serve as a foster parent, it didn’t change the state’s mind to view as an adoptive parent since he is a

The bill is controversial. Supporters said that faith-based agencies should be protected from facing penalty for adhering to their faith tenets, such as by refusing to place children in certain potential foster families, or placing children in religious schools. Opponents argued this bill would give religious agencies the license to discriminate against individuals such as those in the LGBT community.

In the case at hand, JLP v. DJP, the father appeals a decision of a trial court that circumscribed his child visitation rights to exclude overnight visits and “gay activist social gatherings.” The father’s claims that the findings of the trial court were not consistent with uncontradicted expert testimony were rejected by the appeals court on the grounds that the expert testimony was “suspect” and that the child’s exposure to homosexuality presents an inherent harm. The logic of the appeals court opinion is chalked with fallacies due to the failure to prove a link between the father’s conduct and harm to the child, judicial speculation, and the negligence to account for expert testimony. As a result the court takes greater interest in punishing

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

Though I agree with her right to express it. I just don’t believe her personal prejudices should be brought into her work for the state government. I also agree with the court to telling her she must grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. While I agree private business has the right to decide since they are not being funded by tax payers’ money and people have the ability to find other options when a private business does not agree with their morals. But when it is a government official, the public has less options. Whether or not she agrees, she has to follow the

The unjust and prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex is discriminating; according to the Oxford dictionary. This term does not empower them, but instead make people feel powerless. Same-sex couples in particular, who are looking to adopt, feel unequal to their heterosexual associates. In relation to adoption, there shouldn’t be preference to heterosexual couples over same-sex couples. Adoption typically is not an easy process, but when it comes to people of the same sex trying to adopt, what seems to be as simple as to buying a puppy, is very intimidating and discouraging. The laws that govern these decisions do not help at all. The inconsistency amongst all of the states in America makes the process even more challenging, to the point where couples give up. Same-sex couples who are fortunate enough to be allowed by the courts to adopt, are still being judgmental. The judgments are based on their parenting abilities and the effects their lifestyle they live, whether it will have a negative backlash on the children. The intention of my analysis on same-sex adoption is to examine some of the bifurcation and the challenges that these individuals encounter while trying to legally adopt a child.

Child welfare services and the ACLU would agree that thecircumstances remain ideal for the child because having homosexual parents poses nodisadvantage to children (ACLU 2).The gay community is becoming more and more prominent in American society. Whatwas once an extremely ³closeted´ life style, is integrating itself into our everyday lives. As morerights are granted to gay and lesbian people, the more normal they are going to seem to everyoneelse. I¶m confident that my future children will grow up accepting homosexuality and that astime goes on, so will the rest of the country. So if the gay community is going to become sosignificant in our lives, shouldn¶t we grant them equal rights? If we can accept gays and lesbiansas people, partners, workers, and friends, why can¶t we accept them as good parents? When youlook at it logically, the exclusion of homosexuals as adoptive parents just doesn¶t make sense.³Love makes a family, not biology or gender,´ says gay dad Robert Calhoun about hisexperience as an adoptive father. Calhoun and his partner Clay of Avondale Estates, Georgiahave adopted two children-- four-year-old daughter Rainey and eighteen-month-old son Jimmy.Calhoun adds, ³We¶re not moms, we¶re not heterosexual, and we¶re not biological parents, [but]we¶re totally equal and just as loving as female parents, straight parents, and biological parents.´(Gandossy 1 ) The Calhouns certainly seem capable of providing just as much love and

Gay parents are facing discrimination because of their sexual orientation. Twenty-two states currently allow single gays to adopt and 21 states currently allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt in the U.S. (Mallon, 2007, p. 6). The ability of gay couples to rear a child should not be denied only because they are gay. Homosexuals may be looked down upon by society, but they still are humans and have morals. These morals they possess, may influence a child more than those morals taught to a child with heterosexual parents. All over the world, children suffer in families consisting of alcoholics, drug abusers, and sexual abusers (Powell, 2007, p.1). It is not possible that these environments are safer than what would be provided by homosexual

Since the early 1900s, homosexual people have become increasingly popular and greatly resisted. People that are homosexual face barriers placed upon them by the political system and society. Due to these challenges, homosexuals fought to have the same marital and parental rights as heterosexual people. Same-sex adoption is not prohibited in most states in the United States of America and many places worldwide. Family is not determined solely on blood relations and should be legalized in all parts of the world; because homosexual parents are just as good as heterosexual parents, if not better, and can provide an enriching second chance for many children waiting to be adopted.

With all of the unfairness going on right now with LGBT people, sometimes the people adjudicating do not know how it is affecting the victims. If they did know they would know that it has an emotional impact on them in many ways. According to the ACLU they carry out this type of work through five central priority areas: Basic Rights and Liberties, Parenting, Relationships and Marriages, Youth and Schools, and Transgender Discrimination. Basic Rights and Liberties, the ACLU works hard to make LGBT people have equal opportunity to participate fully in civil society. “No LGBT person should experience discrimination in employment, housing, or in business and public places, or the suppression of their free expression or privacy rights.”(LGBT Rights, 1). Parenting, a lot of people especially do not agree that LGBT people should be able to have or adopt kids because it will affect how they grow throughout time and will teach them the wrong things about life. “Fighting restrictions on parenting by LGBT people is critical because this discrimination causes serious, enduring harm to the lives of LGBT people and their children.”(LGBT Rights, 1). Relationships and Marriage, the ACLU believes that LGBT people, like everyone else, should have the freedom to build the kinds of personal, intimate relationships most meaningful to them without risking that their families will be disregarded or harmed by the state (LGBT Rights, 2). Youth and