Within these five states, LegalMatch has had thousands of clients looking for adoption attorneys within the past 12 months.  Of these potential clients, 32% were single, potentially disqualifying them from consideration for adoption in Utah, Nebraska, and Arkansas.  1% identified as gay, thus precluding them from adoption in all of the above 5 states. (And possibly North Dakota, which allows adoption agencies to take into account the “moral and religious” qualities of applicants.)

Why do states limit who can adopt based on marriage or sexuality?  Florida’s gay adoption ban was based on the idea that parents who are gay may subject their children to ridicule and hostility from others, and may not be able to foster “proper” moral guidelines for their children. The Florida Supreme Court considered these motives unrelated to the ban, however, and rightfully so. But what about being married versus being single?

There is no scientific data showing that children are better off with married couples as opposed to unwed or single parents, or vice versa. Supporters of laws preferring married couples to unmarried couples tout anecdotal evidence or their own moral ideals that place greater weight on the idea of marriage and the alleged stability it brings, even though the national percentage of marriages that end in divorce is near 50%. In the end, laws prohibiting unmarried couples from adopting may be as unrelated to a child’s best interests as those laws prohibiting gay couples from doing the same. Indeed, many suspect that these marriage laws are more related to preventing gay couples from adopting more than anything else.

Obviously a single parent will have a lot more work cut out for them. But we have adoption agents and vigorous investigations into potential parents for a reason. Do we need laws arbitrarily deciding that married parents will always be better than un-married parents? No. Doing so only limits the number of people ready to take a child into their homes. Nationwide almost a third of the thousands of people seeking adoption attorneys last year at LegalMatch declared they were single. Would it be fair to exclude these people right off the bat, without any further investigation?

We should be able to trust our various state adoption agencies. After all, state legislatures are motivated by party politics and winning votes. Adoption agents are duty bound to make their decisions based on the best interests of the child. Who would you prefer to make the most important decision in your child’s life? 

Single and Gay – Where Can you Adopt? is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

A Florida couple sought to adopt two foster care children that had been in their foster care for four years. Even though adoption officials unanimously agreed they were qualified and excellent parents, state law compelled them to decline their application because they were gay. (The particularly alarming facts concerning the children’s prior neglect can be found in the opinion here.)

The couple challenged the law prohibiting their adoption as unconstitutional. They claimed it violated fundamental rights guaranteed to children by Florida law and state equal protection guarantees. The court agreed.

The court recognized that Florida guarantees children permanency in an adoptive home. Uprooting children from foster care parents seeking full adoption can only be done for the best interests of the children. In this instance, denying qualified, loving foster care parents seeking full adoption-for no reason other than their sexual orientation-was not narrowly tailored to serving the best interests of the children. (As opposed to, say, discovering that the foster care parents are actually convicted felons.)

Florida’s ban also lost on equal protection grounds. According to government attorneys, Florida prohibited homosexual adoption to promote the well being of children, lessen the stigmatization of children raised by gay parents, and to uphold society’s “moral interests.” The court made significant findings of fact that none of the government’s stated interests were furthered by banning homosexuals from being adoptive parents. The court furthermore held that legislating moral interests-absent some other legislative purpose-was outside the province of government regulation. (I suspect only the hardcore legal philosophers among you will find this at all controversial.)

The decision is significant for a variety of reasons. First, this comes on the heels of Florida’s recent gay marriage ban. Second, child rearing and the importance of having a “traditional family” is often one of the arguments advanced by those who seek to limit gay marriage. A holding that government discrimination against homosexual parents cannot even pass a rational basis analysis severely undercuts arguments advanced by anti-gay marriage advocates regarding the importance of maintaining the “sanctity of marriage.” On the whole, even though Florida was the sole remaining state prohibiting adoption based solely on sexual orientation, the decision is definitely a positive development in advancing the rights of gays and lesbians in America.

Florida Overturns Ban on Gay Adoption is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

-Alexander Haig

Recently, California voters narrowly passed Proposition 8, which effectively bans same-sex marriage in the state.  One reaction to the news is anger-and protest.  Musician Melissa Etheridge gained national attention for her blog in which she vows to stop paying taxes until she’s afforded the same rights as heterosexual citizens.  It seems that sizeable numbers of the LGBT community are planning to follow Etheridge’s lead, which leads me to wonder what consequences they will face. . . .

According to an official IRS report, filing tax returns in not voluntary and citizens do not have the right to withhold tax payments based on moral objection. The IRS cites a large body of case law supporting its position, and effectively knocks down the argument that citizens can refuse to pay income taxes based on moral grounds under the First Amendment, which states:  ”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  The IRS vigorously asserts that the First Amendment does not grant citizens the right to refuse to pay income taxes based on religious or moral grounds, or because taxes are used to fund government programs that they oppose. 

OK, so the IRS seems pretty sure about its position-but how strictly does it enforce rules against conscientious tax objectors?  What’s actually happened to people who’ve refused to pay taxes based on moral considerations?  According to some members of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, conscientious objectors to the war have faced unpredictable consequences.  While criminal prosecution is possible, this is pretty rare.  To be exact, since the 1940s, fewer than 30 people have been jailed for refusing to pay war taxes. 

The IRS is more likely to collect taxes through civil means.  Usually, the IRS sends notices to objectors’ homes and assesses penalties in an effort to intimidate them before it finally takes action-sometimes years later.  Final action may consist of garnishing wages, seizing bank accounts, or even seizing cars and houses.  Of course, some non-filers go unnoticed. . . .

While the tax contributions of Etheridge and other well-to-do citizens would surely be missed by the government, most people simply don’t have as much financial clout.  Further, only about 59% of all Americans pay federal income taxes at all.  Finally, the fines and interest the IRS assesses on protestors might leave the government with more money than if protestors had paid their taxes in the first place. 

It’s unclear if refusing to pay taxes will prompt the government to reconsider its position.  What is clear is that it will take a large and organized effort by the LGBT community to make a significant impact on government through tax resistance.

Taxation Without Representation? The Aftermath of Prop 8 Begins . . . is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog