House fights off changes to gay-adoption bill

TALLAHASSEE – Under pressure from social-conservative groups, the Florida House moved Wednesday toward allowing faith-based adoption agencies to deny adoptions to gay couples.

The House debated HB 7111 ahead of a final vote set for today, with Republicans rejecting several amendments from Democrats designed to kill the bill.

The bill allows private adoption agencies to refuse adoptions to gay couples if the agency has a religious or moral objection.

Democratic amendments nullified by Republicans would have prevented discrimination based on gender or race.

Rep. Jason Brodeur, R-Sanford, said he wants to prevent religious adoption agencies from being shut down so there would be more opportunities for parents seeking to adopt.

He cited the example of Catholic agencies in Massachusetts and other states that closed rather than comply with nondiscrimination laws.

“I don’t believe that the state should be allowed to discriminate against these organizations because of their religious beliefs or convictions,” Brodeur said. “So I’m trying to protect those folks that do good work in the state of Florida from having the government discriminate against their religious beliefs.”

Rep. David Richardson, D-Miami Beach, the first openly gay legislator elected to the House, led the fight against the bill, offering amendments to negate the measure.

He noted the bill allows agencies to raise “moral objections,” not just religious beliefs to reject adoption applicants. Also, religious adoption agencies refusing gay couples could still receive state contracts and taxpayer funds.

“This bill goes far wider and deeper than just religious convictions,” Richardson said.

The House passed a different bill, HB 7013, last month eliminating the state ban on gay adoptions. The bill puts in law a 5-year-old appeals court ruling saying the ban was unconstitutional.

John Stemberger, an Orlando attorney and general counsel for the Florida Family Policy Council, wrote a letter to lawmakers after the vote contending that the court ruling was not binding on the rest of the state, only in the Miami district the decision came from. That, however, is something other lawyers dispute.

“I think the House made a mistake, and it knows that now,” Stemberger said. “There’s no reason a faith-based adoption agency should have to close down over threats of lawsuits.”

Former Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, dropped the state’s fight against the lawsuit that produced the ruling in 2010, and the Florida Department of Children and Families hasn’t enforced the gay adoption ban since it was struck down.

Later in the day, the Senate defeated an amendment from Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, on HB 7013 that would have required a “statewide binding” court to find the ban on gay adoption unconstitutional for the ruling to take effect.

The amendment, which would have essentially reimposed the ban on gay couples adopting, failed on a voice vote.

Stargel said she’s still holding out hope a different appeals court will contradict the ruling. “I don’t believe the final courts have decided,” Stargel said. “It’s possible the Florida Supreme Court would render a different decision.’’

The rest of the bill includes incentives for adopting children with additional incentives for those adopting special needs children. The measure is a top priority of Senate President Andy Gardiner, R-Orlando.

Gay-rights groups are exasperated with the move in the House, seeing it as moving backward on a fight they feel they already won in the courts. They say the House measure is akin to a recent Indiana law allowing businesses to refuse to serve gay people, a move that generated national headlines and eventual revisions to the law.

“It’s outrageous; it’s discrimination in its ugliest form. It’s even worse than Indiana because this requires taxpayers to fund discrimination,” said Nadine Smith, CEO of Equality Florida.

But Brodeur insisted his bill wasn’t meant to hurt gay couples but to protect the consciences of religious adoption agencies.

“It is a shield to protect our religious liberties,” Brodeur said.