FAMILY PRIDE COALITION PROVIDES NATIONAL UPDATE ON LGBT PARENTING LEGISLATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Corri Planck
(323) 848-8804
(202) 487-5778 (cell)
APRIL 28 2005 – WASHINGTON, DC – The Family Pride Coalition today issued its national update on legislation specifically related to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parenting. The state-by-state breakdown is below. The Family Pride Coalition is the only national non-profit organization exclusively dedicated to securing equality for LGBT parents and their families.
“The Family Pride Coalition remains committed its work to fight back anti-gay, anti-family parenting measures, and to provide support in places where legislation has been introduced that would better protect children and families,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Pride Coalition. “We are grateful to our coalition partners – local parenting groups, statewide political organizations and individuals and families who have consistently and courageously voiced their opposition to these measures.”
Arkansas
In response to a court ruling in late 2004 that overturned the state’s regulation that banned lesbian or gay people – and anyone living in a household with a gay or lesbian adult – from being foster parents, Arkansas State Representative Bob Adams (D) introduced a bill, HB 1119, that would prohibit the state from placing children in “homosexual homes.”
A house committee, likely fearing a court challenge to the discriminatory measure, dropped any mention of homosexuality from the measure. Instead, the legislation has been amended to prohibit a child from being adopted by, or placed in a foster home with, any unmarried adult who is cohabitating “in a relationships that is not a legally valid and binding marriage” under the state constitution. The revised bill defines cohabitating as residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person but makes no mention of sexuality.
The measure was passed in the House, but failed in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Alabama
In Alabama, SB 57, authored by State Senator Henry E. “Hank” Erwin (R) would prohibit “homosexuals” from adopting. The bill was introduced Feb. 1.There has been no further action on this bill, but approximately two weeks remain in the legislative session and this measure could still be brought forward for a vote.
Florida
In Florida, the legislative measure is an attempt to remove the ban on “homosexuals” adopting and define the standard as the best interest of the person to be adopted, and require an assessment of the prospective parent. SB 986 is authored by Senator Mandy Dawson, and enjoys the support of Equality Florida and Florida’s Coalition for Fair Adoption, of which the Family Pride Coalition is a member.
SB 1534, authored by Senator Nan Rich (D), has also been filed, a measure that would modify Florida’s ban to allow a court to consider an adoption petitition by a “homosexual.” If a court finds, “by clear and convincing evidence, that the adoptee resides with the person proposing to adopt … and granting the adoptee permanency in that home is more important to the adoptee’s development and psychological needs than maintaing the adoptee in a temporary placement.”
In addition, HB 633, authored by Sheri McInvale (D) provides for adoptive eligibility and preference for foster parents seeking to adopt a child after caring for the child for a specified period of time and meeting certain criteria; provides factors to be considered by a court in determining whether to grant an adoption petition.
Indiana
In the Hoosier State, two anti-gay bills were filed on Jan. 20 in the General Assembly. The first, SB 580, authored by Senator Jeff Drozda (R) would only allow married couples of the opposite sex to adopt. SB 585, authored by Senator John M. Waterman (R), would prohibit homosexuals from adopting or serving as foster parents. Both measures have been referred to the judiciary committee, but have seen no futher action. The Indiana General Assembly ends its session in approximately two weeks.
Michigan
The Coalition for Adoption Rights Equality has announced that a second-parent adoption bill will soon be introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives. This measure will allow for two unmarried individuals to jointly adopt a child from the foster care system, and would also allow an already existing legal parent to directly consent to his/her partner adopting the child they are raising together.
You can also join the Coalition for Adoption Rights Equality, the Triangle Foundation and AFSC-Faith Action Network on Tues., May 10 for Family Lobby Day. It is important for LGBT parents, prospective parents and our supporters to turn out for Family Lobby Day. This effort will take place in the Capitol Building, room 424 from 9:30am-1pm.
Oregon
In Oregon, State Representative John Lim (R-Fairview) has introduced House Bill 2401, designed to limit adoption rights for same-sex couples by requiring the State of Oregon to exercise a preference for married, heterosexual parents over same-sex parents. This bill was referred to the Health and Human Services Committee in January, but has seen no further action.
Tennessee
Tennessee lawmakers have filed eight bills, all designed to prohibit “homosexuals” from adopting or serving as foster parents. Senator Diane Black (R) has filed SB 829 and Representative Dewayne Bunch filed a companion measure, HB 543, to create a ban on adoption by lesbians and gay men. These bills were referred to subcommittee back have seen no further action.
HB 775, authored by Representative Chris Clem (R), and its companion measure, SB 1615, authored by Senator Jim Bryson (R), go even further. In addition to prohibiting adoption by “homosexuals,” this measure also seeks to deny non-gay parents the ability to designate a “known homosexual” as the adoptive parents of their children. This measure failed in the Children and Family Affairs Committee.
Senator Doug Jackson (D) also filed SB 1930, which “prohibits homosexual persons from being eligible to adopt another person.” It’s companion bill, HB 2234, has also been referred to subcommittee but have seen no further action.
In addition, SB 1924 and HB 2230 (Jackson and Buck, respectively) were filed, which prohibit a person from serving as a foster parent is that person is a “homosexual” or if an adult member of that person’s household is a “homosexual.” The measure was referred to a Senate committee, then assigned to a subcommittee. It had not yet been calendared.
The session is anticipated to adjourn in six to seven weeks, and the remaining measures are in play until adjournment.
Texas
On April 19, the Texas House of Representatives voted to ban gay, lesbian and bisexual Texans from serving as foster parents. The legislation also authorizes the state to conduct investigations into the sexual orientation of current foster parents. Representative Robert Talton (R-Pasadena) by-passed the committee process by introducing this legislation as an amendment to the larger foster care restructuring bill, Senate Bill 6. The legislation was adopted by a House vote of 81-58. The Senate then sent the bill to conference committee, where it awaits deliberation.
Talton filed two anti-gay foster care measures during the 2003 session. Both bills died in committee.
In addition to the emotional and social cost of destroying Texas families, this legislation would also cost the state as much as $8 million a year by reducing the number of qualified foster parents and to conduct investigations into the sexual orientation of potential and current foster parents.
Virginia
In Virginia, the anti-gay adoption bill was defeated in the General Assembly on Wed., Feb. 16. The measure, HB 2921, authored by Delegate Richard Black (R), would have prohibited homosexuals from adopting.
The bill was amended to permit the circuit court making a decision about an adoption petition to inquire “whether the petitioner is known to engage in current voluntary homosexual activity or is unmarried and cohabitating with another adult to whom he is not related by blood or marriage.”
However, during the Courts of Justice Committee hearing, several state senators called the measure discriminatory and unnecessary before voting to kill it.