Florida Judge Ruling.

November. 25, 2008, A decision was made in Florida by Miama judge Cindy Lederman to rule against gay adoption ban. "That there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children, finalizing the adoption of two siblings by their gay foster father." -Lederman. After a total of 58 hearings Lederman made it clear that she had no doubts about her decision. In a 53-page judgement, Lederman declared Martin Gill, 47, a gay man from North Miami is now legally the father of two children he has raised since 2004.

"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," Lederman wrote in her order.
"Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic."

In her ruling, leaderman said that gay adoption ban was in violation of the state's equal protections guarantees by singling homosexuals out. Lederman also went on to say that the state of Florida permits gay people to serve as foster parents. Why shouldn't gay people be allowed to foster children whom have been abused, neglected or abandoned.

The two children of Martin Gill, were in bad shape when the Florida Department of Children and Families took custody of them on Dec. 11, 2004. State case workers alleged that the boys, one a infant and a four year old, had been abandoned and were suffering from neglect. The older child had a bad case of ringworm, and the infant had an untreated ear infection.

When Gill and his partner of eight years refused temporary placement only because they had plans to move to Georgia, but decided not to in order to give the boys a good Christmas. Gill reportedly has fostered eight other children in the past, and only planned to have the boys for a few months. But as time pasted, Gill knew that boys would not be returning to their family. Therefore, Gill proposed to challenged the state in order to give these children a stable and good home.
"I felt that the only right thing to do was adopt these children. It wouldn't be right after they were thoroughly bonded with us to give them up to another family. That can be very detrimental to children," -Gill

This ruling is going to be the one of the single most important cases that will benefit in helping the other thousands of other children in need of homes (not only in Florida but in every state), To hopefully have this everlasting legal battle to a national level and taken to supreme court. In doing so, giving rise to a slow epidemic in increasing the equality of gay people.

--- Florida Judge Rules Against Gay Adoption Ban

A good idea.

On the blog site "A Smorgasbord of Politics" I finally found a posting I was interested in writing a commentary on.

She brings up the issue that I too brought up in my second blog posting but in a different way.
The younger teens simply wanted to vote for Obama simply just because of his race and others wanted to vote for Hilary simply on her gender.

Well, thats just ridculous in itself. Students are persuaded by Obama because of his "celebrity-like" persona. Which in most case is an effective strategey seeing how statics showed a historical increase in voting turnout, an astonishing 60% percent americans voted versus past years.
But yes I agree people are so image obbessed in this country but in the contrary Obama is change. He relates to young people and shares interest in ridding lobbyist and non-sense laws restricting certain citizens rights.

McCain had strong creditbility (even though he recycled his speeches time and time again).
But american knew that if McCain croaked would we really feel safe with that hockey mom in office? I mean SERIOULSY. And it was kind of sad to watch an TWO (sold out) theatres of people watching the VP debates (at the alamo drafthouse) laughing and mocking Palin as she consitantly went into rabbit trails and was incapable of answering a question. Working that night was a pretty good laugh for me too. Her and that alaska energy.

Have an anonymous election is an interesting idea, but maybe that should be new restrictions on campaigning. As in no "negative campaigning" or slander, and hey isn't that a law?? Slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report.

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a NEGATIVE image.

Oh well, I guess when you're running for president laws like that don't apply to you. By the way another film is coming out,
a 1977 interview when David Frost interviewed the then Republican President Richard Nixon, who declared, "When the president does it, its not illegal..."
checkout: Frost/Nixon directed by Ron Howard coming 12/5

MILK.

Recently while working I saw the preview about the upcoming movie "MILK" a Biographical film directed by Gus Van Sant. The movie illustrates the later life, political career, and the assassination of San Francisco city supervisor/gay rights activists Harvey Milk.

When you learn about Harvey Milk and his accomplishments in protecting Gay Rights it makes you wonder, similar to the fight for Women's equal rights I always wondered why a person's sexual orientation, race, or gender limited the rights when the constitution plainly expresses in the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So, why does Congress make exceptions? Take for instance Same Sex Marriage. Recently, Connecticut joined California and Massachusetts in granting gay couples the right to get married. And now there is the issue that some states argue that they will not recognize a same sex marriage, that a same sex marriage will only be recognized in the state where the couple obtains the marriage license. Well, if that's the case then shouldn't it be the same for all marriages?
In Article IV, sec 1 Each State Honors all others "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

And yet again why is it that same sex couples are "different"? And just because same sex marriage violates PEOPLE's personal morals or religious beliefs. That makes it an exception?
Personally, I am not gay and yes I am a Christian. I believe, that if you love someone, what does it matter what race or gender they are? And where a lot of Christian's contradrict themselves is that God gave us free will, just like the founding fathers gave us the 14th amendment.
And even if I didn't agree with same sex marriage who gives me, or anyone for that matter the right to say same sex couples cannot marry? It does not concern any part of my life what so ever.
Congress and other states are in violation of the Constitution, point blank. whether people like it or not the government is suppose to abide by what the Constitution says, it's the law.

It's sad and ridiculous how our government still continues to make "exceptions" and mistakes, even after so many years of people like Harvey Milk dedicated their lives to preserving citizen's rights. And when I say citizens I'm including all race, gender, sexual orientation who legally reside in the United States.
Why are citizens still fighting til this day for their rights and equality just because of the choice on which they choose to live.