Subject:  CS/HB 7013: Adoption and Foster Care is a good bill; please sign it.

 

 

You're surely quite busy, being Governor of a large state (Florida, in this case), but I'd like to offer some helpful guidance to you (and ask for representation: I'm one of your constituents) on a matter you'll face shortly.

 

*** As I very rarely write you, I'd ask you 'give ear' to my concerns today ***

 

You'll shortly be presented with CS/HB 7013: Adoption and Foster Care, which passed both House and Senate. See e.g., http://flsenate.gov/Media/PressReleases/Show/2225 (SENATE PASSES LEGISLATION TO HELP CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE FIND ADOPTIVE FAMILIES). It's 'controversial,' but good, and I would ask you sign it – Here are my reasons:

 

As you probably remember, I'm a “far-right” pro-life, “pro-marriage” Conservative Republican, who once almost won in court as Terri Schiavo's 'next friend,' losing a close 4-3 nail-biter –and doing better, even than your predecessor, Gov. Jeb Bush: both of us got past the clerk (who rule on “technical issues”) and our cases, therefore, were voted on “on the merits,” by The Justices themselves: Jeb lost 7-0, and I lost 4-3, before the same panel:

 

 

More recently, I've spent over four-thousand ($4,000.oo) dollars, and gone DEEP into Credit Card debt defending the definition of marriage as solely between 1-man and 1-woman before the U.S. Supreme Court:
[4] Controversial rule challenged: http://www.PrWeb.com/releases/2015/03/prweb12608018.htm
[5] Novel compromise pitched: http://www.PrWeb.com/releases/2015/03/prweb12608035.htm

 

So, you can assure yourself that I'm a pro-life, pro-marriage Christian, and a far-right-wing Conservative Republican. Now, to the case at hand: While I haven't reviewed every aspect of  CS/HB 7013, I listened to the entire 2nd and 3rd readings and debate of the bill, and all parties agree most of the bill is without controversy - and good.

 

http://TheFloridaChannel.org/videos/4815-senate-session/ [2nd reading, in which my Senator, Sen. Kelli Stargel (R-Fla-15), faced strong headwinds in an unsuccessful  attempt to retain a law which was found unconstitutional] http://TheFloridaChannel.org/videos/41415-senate-session/ [final debate and passage of the bill earlier today]

 

Since most of the bill wasn't controversial, I'll focus only on that small portion that was 'controversial': When the bill was in the House, Rep. David Richardson (D-Miami Beach-113) introduced an amendment striking the 'gay adoption ban' language found in §63.042(3), Fla.Stats.: “No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.” [The amendment passed with little or no opposition: I don't even see a vote history on it.]

 

When it got to the Senate, there was debate on that matter, and both times, the Senate agreed with the House's amendment, but not without controversy, so that's why I'm writing you.

 

******* LONG-STORY-SHORT: I'm a far-right conservative, who opposes 'Gay Marriage' and the 'Gay Agenda' in all it's forms, but even I (and the Republican-controlled HOUSE and Republican-led SENATE) have no problems with this provision, and I ask you to trust the 'Conservative Elders' (myself, the house, and the senate) and sign this bill into law.

 

******* “LONG” STORY—in case you need details: Even after I've repeatedly signed up for these “no-call” lists, nonetheless, I got an unsolicited spam Robo-Call from “Florida Family Action,” based in neighboring Orlando. When I inquired about it, they were good enough to send me an email, clarifying their positions: They opposed  CS/HB 7013 for 3 reasons:
 (1)   The bill strikes the language in Florida law which prohibits homosexuals from adopting children.
 (2)   The bill will hurt children because it will eventually lead to the closing of faith-based adoption agencies exactly like what happened in Massachusetts after they legalized same sex marriages.
 (3)   The bill has no "conscience clause" with express preemption to protect faith based adoption agencies being attacked by local non-discrimination ordinances which create a new protected class in sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. 23 such ordinances exists in cities and counties across Florida.

 

I'll address all 3 of their concerns:

 

(#1) First, they are wrong on point #1 – which I will show below.
(#2) Point #2 above is unclear: where is the 'cause and effect'? They do not show how/why?

(#3) I think a 'conscience clause' might be a good idea in some cases: Faith-based hospitals, for example, should not be forced to perform abortions. However, a 'conscience clause' could NOT, for example, allow a place like Bob Jones University, in South Carolina, from prohibiting interracial dating, as it has done in the recent past. So, whether a 'conscience clause' would be good to allow, say, a faith-based adoption agency to prohibit adoptions to persons who are 'gay' would be a “close call,” which I will address when I address point #1 above.

 

LEGAL: As you know, a state appeals court found that the Florida statute prohibiting adoption by homosexuals had “no rational basis” and thus violated their equal protection rights: Fla. Dept. of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., Fla. 3d DCA, No. 3D08-3044, Opinion filed September 22, 2010.

 

PRACTICAL: Moreover, as Sen. Don Gaetz rightly pointed out in debate, DCF currently allows singles to adopt, some of whom are in “Same Sex” relationships. So, besides being a bad law (which was rightly removed from the books), the matter is also moot: “Gay Adoptions” are going on anyway, so, as a “practical matter,” it was not changing anything to remove the bad law.

 

MORALS and SCIENCE: The most important point, however, is whether 'gay adoptions' are 'good' or not, and actual science will tell us the answer to that:

 

See, for example, the “DECLARATION OF LOREN MARKS, PH.D.,” page 20, in Searcy, et al. v. Strange, No. 11:14-cv-208-CGM (S.D.,Ala. 2015), where a small, but statistically significant, group of children were compared, and all things being equal, married couples had the best development from objective teacher reports (and not biased parental reporting), and next, singles, and lastly, homosexual rearing. In other words, “on average” gays did worse even than singles or marrieds, but, in some cases, they were the 'best' option for a child that would otherwise wind up in foster care, a ward of the state, or – worse yet – live on the streets.

 

So, in plain-English, what this means is that “just as” it would be stupid (and morally wrong) to prohibit singles from adopting, it would also be “likewise” stupid (and morally wrong) to have a ban on gays adopting.

 

But, on the other hand, since Marrieds do better than both groups, it is not 'discrimination' to show preference “for” Married Couples and “against” singles, but rather, for a 'compelling state interest. Therefore, it would also NOT be 'discrimination' to show preference against gays as well. (But a distinction must be made between gay lifestyle – actions – and gay “orientation” which is merely a preference or a temptation. The two are similar, but distinct.)

 

PRACTICAL PART-2: Besides being stupid, and going against plain science, if we left §63.042(3) in place, it would make us 'Conservatives' look like hateful, prejudiced bigots. (Most of us are NOT haters, and for that reason, I am boiling mad at the FFA for their advocacy: their actions make it infinitesimally more difficult for 'true' conservatives, like myself, to defend '1 man-1 woman' marriage, as I am doing in the United State Supreme Court, and, as outlined in the press releases above. Moreover, these rich and powerful so-called conservatives are not helping me in the least, while I languish in deep credit card debt, defending what they claim to support: If these FFA people be true Conservatives (or true Christians), why are they not helping offset the huge money they have, with any of my projects: my bid to save Terri Schiavo –or my bid to defend Biblical Marriage in Nation's High Court  wherein I incur huge FedEx, Postal Service, Printing, and Press Release Cost$? I will give them one more chance to actually use their financial talent for good, insofar as I cc copy them in my email to you. I Would appreciate any donations to offset the costs detailed in these 5 links:

• http://www.SupremeCourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-8744.htm

• http://GordonWatts.com/

• http://GordonWayneWatts.com/

• Controversial rule challenged: http://www.PrWeb.com/releases/2015/03/prweb12608018.htm

• Novel compromise pitched: http://www.PrWeb.com/releases/2015/03/prweb12608035.htm

However, I do not write you looking for a donation or handout: Rather, I would rather suffer debt, if that debt results in a proper defense of “both” the definition of marriage (as 1 man and 1 woman) “and also” a prohibition against the unnecessary discrimination, hate, and discontent that resulted from §63.042(3), Fla.Stats.:[“No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.”], which will be rightly and correctly removed from the books-if this bill is signed into law, as it should be.

 

In short, most of these 'Gay Marriage' issues are Federal in nature, and not able to be resolved by you, a “State” governor, but, in a few cases, there are indeed state issues. This adoption bill appears good, and I would respectfully ask you to sign it into law.

 

You may, if you like (but do not have to) quote me as an influence from your constituency—should you issue a press release.

 

PS: Sen. Kelli Stargel, who voted against this bill, is a true Conservative, and I am privileged, also, to call her a trusted friend; but, with all due respect, I stand in direct opposition to her vote: she did not represent me today. Please sign this into law, and, as I said above, cite me as a source, if you like, in any and all statements to the press or whomever.

 

With kind regards, I Am Sincerely,