Share 
 
 For the last four years, Martin Gill and his partner have been raising two foster children in their North Miami home. The brothers, now age four and nine, have thrived in Martin and his partner's care. After the parental rights were terminated in 2006, Martin and his partner hoped to adopt the children. Since 1977, however, the state of Florida, while allowing gay and lesbian couples to serve as foster parents, has automatically banned adoptions by gay people. 
 
 
 
 With the help of the ACLU, Martin is challenging this ban, and last November a juvenile court judge granted the adoption. The case is not settled yet though because Florida's attorney general immediately appealed the lower court's decision. Fortunately for now, the brothers remain in Martin and his partner's care. ||||| Same-Sex Marriage Decision: "Far From Over" 
 
 Even before this week's ruling in the case involving Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriage in California, appeals of the judge's decision were expected.In response to a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who said the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights, Judge Vaughan Walker rejected every argument posed by sponsors of the ban. In his 136-page opinion, Walker wrote, "Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.""I think the critical issue here is that what you have is a district court finding after a full trial - everybody had an opportunity to be heard - an opinion that demonstrates that there is simply no basis whatsoever to continue discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens who want to marry," said David Boies, one of the lead attorneys in the lawsuit against Proposition 8.Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council and a supporter of the ban on same-sex marriage, called the decision an example of judicial activism."This issue is not going to go away," Perkins said on"I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows - and a district level judge and an openly-homosexual judge at that - who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California, but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments. This is far from over."[Perkins referred to a February 2010 San Francisco Chronicle column which claims Walker's homosexuality was an "open secret." Walker himself has not answered questions about his sexual orientation . Nevertheless, the defense team does not plan to raise the specter of the judge's sexual orientation as they appeal his ruling to the Ninth Circuit, lawyer Jim Campbell told the Associated Press this week. "The bottom line is this case, from our perspective, is and always will be about the law and not about the judge who decides it."]When asked by Dickerson what basis the judge's sexual orientation might have on his ruling, Perkins admitted he did not know whether Walker is gay or straight, but added, "I think, you know, had this guy been, say, an evangelical preacher in his past, there would have been cries for him to step down from this case. I do think it has a bearing on the case."Perkins said the judge ignored "a lot of the social science" about the affects of same-sex couples on families, and cited a 2005 ruling by a federal district level judge that Nebaska's ban against same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, a decision that was overturned in the 8th Circuit."Certainly not only based upon the social empirical data that's out there, but on the legal basis, this is a flawed decision," Perkins said. "And as I said, it's far from over."Boies disputed Perkins on the evidence: "It's easy to sit around and debate and throw around opinions that appeal to people's fear and prejudice, [and] cite studies that either don't exist or don't say what you say they do."In a court of law you've got to come in and you've got to support those opinions, you've got to stand up under oath and cross-examination," Boies said. "And what we saw at trial is that it's very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens of the right to voteto make all sorts of statements and campaign literature, or in debates where they can't be cross-examined."But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that's what happened here. There simply wasn't any evidence, there weren't any of those studies. There weren't any empirical studies. That's just made up. That's junk science. It's easy to say that on television. But a witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court you can't do that."That's what we proved: We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost," Boies said.Perkins retorted that "there is not conclusive evidence to suggest that children who grow up with two moms or two dads fare as well as children who grow up with a mom and a dad," but acknowledged that the issue of how children are impacted by same-sex relationships is "relatively new."But he did suggest that over the last 40 years marriage has been "devalued," and said there is abundant evidence to suggest public policy - such as no-fault divorce - "has truly impacted children and impacted the institution of marriage."And the judge in his ruling actually just ignored all of that and said there is no evidence that any of the policy that's been adopted on no-fault divorce and other liberal-leaning policies has impacted marriage," Perkins said. "I think anybody with a half a brain can see that the policies that have been adopted in the last 40 years have impacted marriage, and as a result have impacted the well-being of children."Boies responded, saying Judge Walker did deal with it, "and he pointed out, which is obvious, that no-fault divorce doesn't have anything to do with the issue that's here."The empirical studies that do exist and that are based on what's happened in Canada and Sweden and Spain and other countries and other states where you are able to have marriage equality, demonstrate that there is no harm. There are studies going back for 20 years that demonstrate this. The problem here is that, unlike a court, people don't stick to the facts."Thought the case is headed for an appeals court, many expect it will land before the U.S. Supreme Court. Boies predicted that the High Court will side with him."Remember, unlike abortion, the court is not creating a new legal right," he said. "This is a right that has been well recognized for 100 years in terms of the right of individuals to marry. And all that's at issue here is, can the State of California take away that right depending on the sex of your intended partner? And that issue depends exactly on what you said before: Is there a rational base for that distinction? Can you prove that it harms heterosexual marriage? Children? Can you prove it harms anybody? Why do you make these people suffer if it doesn't help anybody?"And what we proved at trial is that there simply isn't any basis, no evidence at all, to indicate that this has any harm to anybody. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary, that it makes those relationships more stable. Even the defendant's own witnesses admitted that there was no evidence of harm to heterosexual marriage or to children as a result of gay and lesbian marriage. Even the defendant's own experts admitted that there was great harm to homosexual couples and the children they're raising by depriving them of the stability and love of marriage."Perkins said, "We hope that sanity will reign when it does make its way to the United States Supreme Court."This is an activist decision by a district-level court who is interjecting his view over the view of not only millions of Americans who have voted on this issue, but literally the history of the human race," Perkins said.Also appearing at a roundtable discussion on the program,disputed Boies' assertion that the highest court in the land would back Walker's decision."They are asking the Supreme Court to set aside essentially the laws of 44 states, so that is an enormous stretch," Crawford said. "Now of course, the Supreme Court has taken up issues of gay rights in the past. Justice Kennedy, the key swing vote in 2003, said that states could not criminalize homosexual sex in the privacy of your bedroom. But that is an entirely different matter than saying there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."In this case, Judge Walker quoted Anthony Kennedy 15 times or so" in his decision," noted. "It was a letter to him, wasn't it? Is that going to work, writing directly to Kennedy, trying to use his own words to say you have to vote with me?"Clearly this decision was a decision with an eye on appeal," said Crawford. She pointed out the narrow divisions on the court: "You have four liberals and the four conservatives and the man in the middle Anthony Kennedy who's kind of this human jump ball. What they are asking Justice Kennedy to do in this case is not only, I mean, he's got to grab the ball, take it down the court, slam it in the basket and shatter the backboard. This is something that Anthony Kennedy doesn't do. He's a very cautious justice. He doesn't like to get ahead."The same-sex ruling that he wrote in 2003, that struck down laws that criminalized homosexual sex - no one was enforcing these laws," Crawford said. "This would change the law of the nation. They would be so far ahead of public opinion, and that is why this case was controversial from the beginning."Remember, the traditional gay rights groups did not want David Boies and his conservative counterpart Ted Olsen to file this case because they think the Supreme Court is not ready. They wanted to see more states pass laws allowing same-sex marriage and then take it to the court and not put that onus and that pressure on the Supreme Court."I would not be so confident if I were David Boies," she said. ||||| LITTLE ROCK — A Pulaski County circuit judge on Friday declared Arkansas’ ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. 
 
 Judge Chris Piazza issued the ruling in a lawsuit filed by several same-sex couples. He did not stay his ruling, which an attorney for the plaintiffs said apparently clears the way for same-sex couples to marry. 
 
 The state attorney general’s office said it would appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court and would seek a stay. 
 
 In a 13-page, single-spaced order, Piazza said Arkansas’ constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman and a state law barring same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized violate inalienable rights guaranteed under both the federal and state constitutions. 
 
 “Arkansas’ marriage laws discriminate against same-sex couples in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because they do not advance any conceivable legitimate state interest necessary to support even a rational-basis review,” Piazza said in the order. 
 
 The judge said the Arkansas Constitution states that “all men are created equally free and independent,” but that in passing Amendment 83, voters “singled out same-sex couples for the purpose of disparate treatment. This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality.” 
 
 Amendment 83 passed in 2004 with 75 percent of the vote, a fact often cited by its supporters. Piazza wrote that “the fact that Amendment 83 was popular with voters does not protect it from constitutional scrutiny” and that the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights that cannot be submitted to a vote. 
 
 He rejected the argument that the state has an interest in seeing that children are raised by opposite-sex couples rather than same-sex couples, noting that banning same-sex marriage does not prohibit gays from having children. 
 
 “The only effect the bans have on children is harming those children of same-sex couples who are denied the protection and stability of parents who are legally married,” Piazza wrote in the order. 
 
 The judge also said that excluding same-sex couples from marriage with no rational basis violates their right to privacy. He noted that the Arkansas Supreme Court cited a right to privacy in rulings that struck down a state law banning sodomy and a state law banning adoption by unmarried, cohabiting couples. 
 
 Piazza cited several historic cases in his order, including U.S. v. Windsor, in which the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and Loving v. Virginia, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. 
 
 Referencing the plaintiff in the latter case, Piazza wrote, “It has been over 40 years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice. The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it.” 
 
 Jack Wagoner, attorney for the plaintiffs who challenged Arkansas’ gay marriage ban, called it a “beautifully written opinion.” 
 
 “He pretty much ruled as broadly as he possibly could, striking it down on pretty much every conceivable ground that we raised in our pleadings, and that’s good for (standing up on) appeal,” he said. 
 
 Aaron Sadler, spokesman for Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, said Friday, “We respect the court’s decision, but, in keeping with the attorney general’s obligation to defend the state constitution, we will appeal. We will request that Judge Piazza issue a stay of his ruling so as not to create confusion or uncertainty about the law while the Supreme Court considers the matter.” 
 
 McDaniel recently said he personally supports gay marriage but will continue to defend the same-sex marriage ban as attorney general. 
 
 Jerry Cox, the president of the Christian conservative Family Council and the leader of the effort to get Amendment 83 on the ballot, said Friday he was “extremely disappointed” by the ruling and surprised that Piazza did not issue a stay to avoid confusion. 
 
 “The marriage of one man to one woman has been a cornerstone of western civilization for over a thousand years, and it is simply not right for a judge in Little Rock to try to pull that foundation from under our society,” he said. 
 
 Cox said he is optimistic that the state Supreme Court will overturn the ruling. He said the court “has not been kind” to the Family Council’s issues in rulings such as the one on adoption by unmarried, cohabiting couples, but noted that with the nonpartisan judicial election set for May 20, “we may have a little bit different makeup on the court by the time this case is heard.” 
 
 Groups around the country that support gay marriage hailed the ruling. 
 
 “This victory is an essential step on the journey toward full equality for all,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin, an Arkansas native, said in a statement. 
 
 Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, said in a statement, “With nearly 70 marriage cases now making their way through the courts, and five federal appellate courts now hearing arguments and soon to rule, today’s decision out of Arkansas underscores that all of America is ready for the freedom to marry,” 
 
 Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its U.S. v. Windsor ruling in June, federal judges have struck down same-sex marriage bans in Utah, Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan. Those rulings have been stayed pending appeals.
– A Florida court has struck down the state's 33-year-old ban on gay adoptions, ruling that the law is unconstitutional and there is "no rational basis" for it. Gov. Charlie Crist says the state will stop enforcing the ban immediately, although he hasn't commented on whether the state plans to appeal the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court, the Miami Herald reports. "Given a total ban on adoption by homosexual persons, one might expect that this reflected a legislative judgment that homosexual persons are unfit to be parents,'' stated the court, which noted that the law was the only remaining one of its kind in the country. "No one in this case even hinted at any such argument. The parties agree 'that gay people and heterosexuals make equally good parents.'" The case was a hard-fought battle by plaintiff Martin Gill and his partner, who have been foster parents to two brothers, now 6 and 10, but were blocked from adopting the boys. "I'm going to get their birth certificates with me listed as their father. That will be a thrilling thing for me," Gill told AP.