Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Anita Bryant's Anti-Gay Legacy
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Debate Continues, but There's Little Doubt Speculators Are Adding to Pain at the Pumps
Thomas Palley
Democracy and Elections:
Seven Ways Your Vote Might Not Count This November
Steven Rosenfeld
DrugReporter:
'The Dope Craze That's Terrorizing Vancouver'
Lani Russwarm
Election 2008:
An Ex-Beauty Queen for VP: Political Risk or Political Genius?
Heather Gehlert
Environment:
Palin Is a Global-Warming-Denying, Polar-Bear-Dissing, Pat Buchanan Acolyte
Joseph Romm
ForeignPolicy:
Bush Is Pouring Gas on Afghanistan's Bonfire
Chris Hedges
Health and Wellness:
Universal Health Coverage Is No Silver Bullet
Niko Karvounis
Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman
Immigration:
Immigration: Too Hot for the Dems?
Roberto Lovato
Media and Technology:
How the Media's Tarring of Hillary Hurt Obama Too
Eric Boehlert
Movie Mix:
Hollywood Gets Muslims Wrong, Again
Wajahat Ali
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Americans' Attitudes Toward Breastfeeding Are Making Our Kids Sick
Aisha Qaasim
Rights and Liberties:
Guantánamo Suicide Report: Truth or Travesty?
Andy Worthington
Sex and Relationships:
Yet Another Obscenity Trial? We Should Be Ashamed
Dr. Marty Klein
War on Iraq:
U.S. Forces to Hand Over Anbar Province to Iraqis
Water:
Alaska Chooses Largest Gold Mine Over Clean Water
Kari Lydersen
Remember Anita Bryant, the Miss America runner-up turned orange juice tout turned anti-gay campaigner? Though she long ago faded from public view, her legacy survives in Florida.
Bryant, who condemned homosexuality as immoral and against Gods wishes, is best known for her 1977 campaign to repeal a Miami ordinance banning anti-gay discrimination. Her organization, Save Our Children, claimed that gays -- or known practicing homosexuals, in her lingo -- were converting children to homosexuality. It was thus no surprise that after Bryant succeeded in her self-described crusade against the bias ordinance, she turned her sights on Floridas adoption laws.
Since homosexuals cannot reproduce, Bryant reasoned, they must recruit and freshen their ranks. Fanning the flames of anti-gay hysteria, Bryant helped convince the Florida legislature to pass a law that entirely barred gays from adopting children.
Fast forward more than two and a half decades. In the intervening years, Miami finally passed an anti-gay bias ordinance, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas ban on gay sodomy, and Anita Bryant slipped into obscurity.
Last week, nonetheless, a federal appellate court upheld Floridas anti-gay adoption law against a constitutional challenge. While its language was more guarded then Bryants ever was, the court relied on the same discriminatory rationale: that gay adoptive parents might create gay adoptive kids.
The case began in 1999, when four gay men who were serving as foster parents or legal guardians filed suit in federal court claiming that Floridas exclusionary adoption rule was unconstitutional. The lead plaintiff, Steven Lofton, is a registered pediatric nurse who has raised from infancy three children who were born HIV-positive. As the court was later to acknowledge in its opinion, by all accounts, Loftons efforts in caring for these children have been exemplary.
The district court threw out the suit in 2001, and the men appealed. Their claim got what might have seemed like a decisive boost last summer, when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lawrence v. Texas that Texas gay sodomy statute was unconstitutional.
One of the factors the Court emphasized, in striking down the Texas law, was the unjust stigma it engendered. By making gay sodomy illegal -- or in the Courts euphemistic language, by making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct -- the law was an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.
Much of the Supreme Courts reasoning presumes that gays and lesbians have the right to be free from discrimination. Yet its ruling is grounded in privacy concerns rather than anti-discrimination protections. Sounding almost apologetic, the Court explained that a decision based on equal protection grounds would have left heterosexual sodomy unprotected. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause, the majority opinion noted, some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
| More News and Analysis: | ||
|
U.S. Forces to Hand Over Anbar Province to Iraqis War on Iraq: Citing stronger domestic security forces and a need for troops in Afghanistan, a U.S. general says control will be handed over in "just a few days." Middle East Online. August 30, 2008. |
Guantánamo Suicide Report: Truth or Travesty? Rights and Liberties: More than two years after the government began investigating the suicides of three Guantánamo prisoners, disturbing questions remain. By Andy Worthington, Andy Worthington's Blog. August 30, 2008. |
Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon Members of Joel's Army are fighting to bring about the millennial reign of Christ. By Casey Sanchez, Southern Poverty Law Center. August 30, 2008. |