Constitutional Law

Homo inner Adoption and Adoption uprightnesss argon found on the philosophy that the State has a responsibility to act in the best interest of youngsterren who be available for acceptation . To this abate , liberals who wish to adopt a child be screened by various agencies to determine whether they atomic number 18 fit to be c completely downs This shape is designed to ensure that adopted children are not rigid in homes in which they might be at try of physical , emotional , or sexual abuse or other types of danger . The definition of a fit parent br however , is often ground more than on prevailing societal norms than on some(prenominal) set down social or scientific theories . In this fictitious scenario , the belief that wo custody are more nurturing than men and prejudice against homosexuals led the State of Wisconsin to limiting legislation which prevents single men and homosexual single women from universe allowed to adopt , while heterosexual single women will be allowed to do so . While some people may object to homosexual adoption on moral railyard , a review of the applicable case indicates that homosexuals should be allowed to exit adoptive parentsIn this scenario , the fictitious Wisconsin natural law illustrates the fact that in numerous instructions , the United States is still a segregated cabaret . Laws that give rights to one root while removing rights from another group contribute to this segregation . However , as the Supreme coquette noted in dark-brown v . Board of didactics (1954 , separate systems are inherently unequal . The 14th Amendment guarantees that all citizens shall receive equal treatment on a lower floor the law . A system that creates one system of adoption for single men and another for single women is unequal and is therefore unconstitutional under the equal cling toion article of the 14th Amendment . Furthermore , a system that applies one standard for heterosexual couples and another for individuals with a homosexual preference is in like manner unequal and is therefore also unconstitutional under the same equal protection clause of the 14th AmendmentSetting aside for the moment the more controversial wages of homosexual adoption , the fictitious law in this scenario is based on the assumption that women are more suited to be parents than men , regardless of the man s sexual orientation . because , the law discriminates against men on the sole basis of their sexual activity . From the perspective of a potential parent , adoption is the performance by which the State or an agency that has been licensed by the State provides the adult with the benefit of a child . It is outlay noting that while adoption is often depicted as world for the benefit of the child who is available for adoption , there are actually at least two beneficiaries in the adoption process : the child and the adult or adults who wish to sprain parents By making heterosexual women the sole potential adult beneficiaries of the adoption process , the law would deny this benefit to men . As the Supreme Court noted in Frontiero v . Richardson (1973 classifications based upon sex , like classifications based upon race , alienism , and national origin , are inherently suspect and moldiness therefore be subjected to close judicial scrutiny In this case , the law would not stand up to whatsoever reasonable degree of judicial scrutiny . To borrow a phrase from the Court s opinion in Frontiero , the invidious treatment of women over men in the adoption process is based on gross , stereotyped distinctions between the sexes This is gender discriminationTurning to the more emotional issue of homosexual adoption , it is also clear that the fictitious law would be unconstitutional in its preferential treatment of heterosexual women and heterosexual couples Under the 14th Amendment , individuals who are homosexual cannot be discriminated against solely on the basis of their sexual orientation (Romer v . Evans , 1996 . The fictitious law places homosexual share in the same categories as pedophilia , drug addiction , and other behaviors that would place the child in harm s way .

Political conservatives might argue that they are attempting to protect the child from the danger of being raised within the environment of a homosexual lifestyle . Such an line of credit would assume that characterisation to homosexuality , even in a positive clear-cut , is inherently wrong for children . Upon reflection , it appears that any such argument would be based more on biases against homosexuals than on any research into the interactions between homosexual parents and their adoptive or biologic childrenWhile the United States strives to be multicultural partnership that is tolerant of a variety of lifestyles , examples of informal and institutionalized discrimination continue to follow . Fortunately , the Constitution provides a framework that is designed to protect minorities from prejudice and discrimination . In cases such as Brown v . Board of Education and Rover v . Evans , laws that affirm supported institutional discrimination have been overturned by the Courts . Unfortunately , as this scenario illustrates , such laws continue to be discussed and in many cases enacted . However , this tendency to discriminate does not usurp the unconstitutionality of the lawsFinally , the don t ask , don t tell nature of the law violates 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination . Under the law individuals who are homosexual would be expected to identify themselves as such . While this law does not make homosexuality illegal , it theless penalizes individuals who identify themselves as being homosexual . Women who lie about(predicate) their sexual orientation and claim to be heterosexual when they , in fact , are not place themselves at the risk of perjury or fraudFreedom of religion includes freedom from religion . The claims of the religious right moreover , the United States is still officially a secular society . In most cases , laws that attempt to impose religious beliefs about sexual conduct on non-believers are probably divergence to be unconstitutionalReferencesBrown v . Board of Education 347 U .S . 483 (1954Frontiero v . Richardson 411 U .S . 677 , 93 S .Ct . 1764 (1973Romer v . Evans 517 U .S . 620 , 116 S .Ct . 1620 (1996Homosexual Adoption and PAGE 1 ...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .