What effect do arbitrary probibitions on LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual) families really mean for society?

Well I guess the first question is what is an arbitrary prohibition?

Let's first define arbitrary according to the dictionary: "1) Determined by chance, whim or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle; 2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference." Free Dictionary online.

Now let's define prohibition according to the dictionary: "1) The act of prohibiting or the condition of being prohibited; 2) A law, order, or decree that forbids something." Free Dictionary online.

So an arbitrary prohibition is a law, order or decree that forbids a group of individuals from doing something based upon the whim, impulse or principle of other individuals' judgment or preference about what others in society should or should not be allowed to do.

I believe that this is exactly what is happening to LGBT families when states and the federal government pass laws that tell us that we are not allowed to marry one another and in some states that we are not allowed to adopt, individually or together. I happen to reside in the one state (Florida) that has strictly prohibited homosexuals from adopting period, including other adults, since 1977. Arkansas just recently joined Florida's ranks in the past major election cycle and also applied its own strict ban.

I am not sure that Arkansas bans homosexuals from adopting adults but this ban by Florida is pretty interesting. Florida requires that anyone 12 years old or older consent to the adoption, and that their parents consent to it also, if they are under 12 years old the parents need to consent, unless their rights have been terminated because they have been deemed as otherwise unfit. So, why does Florida believe it is in a better position to make this decision then the individuals directly affected? If they don't think the biological parents are capable of making this decision, shouldn't Florida be terminating their rights and putting the child in foster care, if the child is a minor? If the child is an adult, what right does Florida have to interfere with his/her right to form a family relationship he/she obviously wants?

The answer to this appears to be that Florida believes that it is its right to apply this prohibition even despite its unreasonable application. How did this happen? Anita Bryant then pop singer and spokesperson for Florida Citrus Growers came to Florida with her bible and opinions and traveled the state to incite fear in the psyches of the electorate and led a charge in Dade County, Miami, Florida to repeal a local ordinance ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. She enlisted the assistance of Jerry Falwell and became the leader of the Save Our Children organization. As if Dade County was not enough of a challenge she traveled the state to insure similar laws were not passed in other counties of Florida.

Ms. Bryant stated that based upon her own heterosexual relationship, she was married at the time, she knew that homosexuals could not produce children - duh? (She had to be married to figure this out?). She then deduced that the only way for homosexuals to make more homosexuals was to encourage society to pass laws prohibiting people from discriminating against them in housing and employment. She said this was a surreptitious way of homosexuals breeding legitimacy to their relationships in the eyes of children so that they could eventually recruit children to their ranks to insure there would be more homosexuals - huh? She never stated where the homosexuals that existed before the ban on discrimination in employment and housing came from. I can personally speak from my own experience and tell you that my parents are heterosexual and I do not know anyone who has two parents that are homosexual. I do know of three people who were raised by one homosexual parent, while the other parent is heterosexual, and both parents were previously involved in a relationship with the other. (I'm sure Ms. Bryant would have her own spin about this, but I am not going there right now.)

Ms. Bryant incited the public concern about recruitment efforts by homosexuals, however she never presented any existing examples of this phenomenon. At the same time she incited a boycott against orange juice which resulted in her loosing her job as representative for the Florida Citrus Growers accompanied by a marked decrease in the purchase of Florida orange juice. All of this occurred under the watchful eyes of her God - whom she constantly referred to, with the assistance of Jerry Falwell, during her continual efforts to discriminate against homosexuals. Her efforts culminated in the passage of the gay adoption ban during the 1977 Florida legislative session and the repeal of the anti-discrimination ordinance in Dade County that same year.

There are a small handful of other states that have passed bans on same-sex couples adopting but not on individuals. I'm not mentioning who they are so as not to set off some religious/right wing extremist on a witch hunt in these states to disrupt those families that have been formed by LGBT individuals adopting children and providing them permanent homes.

So, I think that I have made my point that this is an arbitrary ban. But I am sure you still want to know how this affects LGBT people?

Well my relationship with my "nephew" is not recognized in any legal sense. Why? Because my relationship with his legal Aunt Tara, whom he will never know, was not recognized by law - just our friends and family when we had our commitment ceremony in our backyard. So, he doesn't have a recognized relationship to inherit from me, but more importantly I have no prioritized right to adopt him should his parents perish before his age of majority. On top of this, I will never be able to adopt him as long as this gay adoption ban is in place, and could only get permanent guardianship. However, if a legally recognized family member stepped forward and could adopt him then this would be preferable to the court, because this would give him "permanency". It would not recognize my constant involvement in his life (on average every two weeks and sometimes more - with frequent overnight stays.) and his emotional attachment to me and my wife, his Aunt Kelly.

So it would be useless for his parents to put in their Will that I be allowed to adopt him since the status of the law prohibits it. I believe that this could be incredibly disruptive to him since me and his Aunt Kelly are family to him and of all his family we see him the most. Admittedly a lot of this is due to geography but some of it is due to choice, by a few people. He has only one other Aunt besides me and Aunt Kelly, and no Uncles so the choices are slim. Fortunately, we aren't the only choice as it concerns options...its just that we aren't a choice for his parents at all, not by their own decision making but by the State's.

This is the situation for many gays and lesbians. There are many households where homosexuals are raising children where only one of them has a legally recognized right to the child, by biology, and the other does not have any right. They are a legal stranger to the child. Many of these children were obtained through surrogacy or artificial insemination from sperm donations. Others have been place there by friends or family members, sometimes their parents, that are unable to take care of them and don't want them to go into foster care with strangers.

This leads us to what happens to these children when their socially recognized parents are not legally recognized by the law and one or both of them die? Well, they won't get social security benefits until they turn 18 years old. They won't benefit from the surviving parent's right to inherit from the decedent as a recognized spouse and retain more wealth than they otherwise would have, and will have no right in opposition to legally recognized family members for a superior recognized position to inherit from the decedent. The child is just a legal stranger to the decedent. If they both die, then the child is thrown into legal limbo since neither "parent" has a right to Will the child to someone they trust and the child knows.

This prompts the question: How is this in the best interest if children? It isn't and a few Florida judges have stated this in their trial courts as it concerns children placed in homosexual households through the State foster care program. That's right we are allowed to foster children in the system. They can live with us until they are adults but we can never adopt them as our own and give them the permanency they deserve. One of these cases has been taken up on appeal and we are currently waiting for the appellate decision. I wait with quiet expectation as to the result and the apprehensive realization that regardless of the outcome it won't be the end of the debate or the battle.

It is important to note that each of these trial courts recently ignoring the gay adoption ban in Florida looked at the statute, heard extensive testimony by professionals on families and children and reviewed the research on homosexual households in order to arrive at their determination to allow these homosexuals to adopt. There was no "chance, whim or impulse" involved in this decision making, just "necessity, reason and principle" involved. A breath of fresh air, indeed.