Overturn archaic and unfounded laws against adoptions by gays

The United States in general, and the State of Florida in particular, should follow the lead of other countries that permit adoption by gays. There is absolutely no reason to prohibit gay individuals or couples from adopting children who need a home. There are far too many children that want and need a loving environment to allow hysteria and unwarranted fear to prevent such adoptions. Growing up with parents who are gay has absolutely no influence on a child's sexual orientation. What it does have an effect on is that child's willingness to accept others and to become contributing members of society - traits that all parents should hope their children develop.

Mexico's high court OKs adoption by gays


After its decision earlier this month to uphold a Mexico City law granting marriage rights to gay couples, Mexico's Supreme Court voted Monday to also back the city's law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. Google/The Associated Press (8/16)

U.K. rules adoption service cannot exclude gay couples


An adoption advisory service funded by the Roman Catholic church cannot refuse to help gay couples adopt, according to a final ruling by the U.K.'s Charity Commission. "The law is carefully weighted to balance the rights of organizations such as religious charities and the rights of minority groups such as those with a particular sexual orientation," the commission said. Google/The Associated Press (8/19)

Change of name may be in order

I may have to revise my blog to not be just a legal op-ed forum, but one in which I can rant (and rave if need be) about the stupidity and crap in the world (or wonderfulness on occasion.)

For instance, I recently purchased a printer toner cartridge from QuikShip - awesome service, very prompt, and cheaper than you can find just about anywhere. I decide I would like to recycle the old cartridge. QuikShip promptly emails me a UPS shipping label.

And then the problems begin.

First, you just simply cannot go to UPS.com and schedule a pick-up. You have to have a UPS account number to be charged. Fair enough. So I decided to go to the UPS Store (Chickasaw and Lake Underhill in Orlando, FL) where I was informed that $1.07 would be required to tape my shipping label to the cartridge box. The UPS Store does NOT offer the little window envelopes that are so readily and freely available from UPS upon request - as many as you want. Of course, I balk at paying $1.07. It's absurd.

So, I decide I'll look for a UPS drop box and just put the label in one of the free window envelopes stocked at such boxes and ship the package. I turn to my iPhone and the UPS website just isn't iPhone friendly and/or the AT&T 3G service is too slow to be useful. I give up and go home, package still with me.

I next call UPS on the telephone and after going through various speech recognition prompts, the system gives up on me and transfers me to a live representative. She goes through her regular routine when I tell her I have something to ship and then requests an account number. I explain the situation, and she informs me there would be an $8.00 charge for UPS to come t my residence - the shipping label only covers the actual shipping of the package. Imagine that - the pickup charge for a package to be shipped is NOT included in the shipping charge. My ears get hot and now I'm perturbed even further. How did UPS get so big overcharging its customers? Why do people still use their services?

My conduct becomes unprofessional, I rant a few minutes, and then I give up. I thank her for her time and explain that I understand that she has no authority or responsibility; I understand that my call does not matter to her personally, and I wager not to UPS either. I hang up. I blog.

So, the question now before me is what is the best use of my blog? Legal op-ed, or rants and raves?

Make-Up of the US Supreme Court v. Law School Tuition

With the nomination and probable confirmation of Elena Kagan as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice, the make-up of the Court will be totally from Harvard or Yale, and another millionaire. While those two schools can and should be proud of that accomplishment, the remaining law schools in the country - especially those not in the Tier 1 list - should review their curriculum, their professors, and most importantly, their tuition.

To pay over $30K a year to attend a Tier 4 school is ridiculous, especially given the fact that there is almost no chance to ever succeed to the highest court in the land if you've attended such a school. Perhaps the tuition charged should be tied more closely to the ranking of the law school. There is little incentive for law schools to reduce tuition at this time. The number of lawyers is going to increase significantly, and many of these new lawyers will be shouldering a heavy financial burden without the benefit of the Tier 1 status or level of education, presumably.

It's time for a change - one that benefits the law school students and not the pockets of those running law schools, regardless of their rank.

Hypocrisy of High Court: Stevens and Comstock Rulings

Recently, the US Supreme Court held that the federal law against depiction of animal cruelty was an illegal infringement on First Amendment free speech rights, in effect ruling against animal welfare. United States v. Stevens. Study after study has indicated that many people who ultimately harm other humans start out abusing animals, and there are extremely strong analogies between depictions of animal cruelty and child pornography which the Court could - and should - have used as a guideline to uphold this law.

Even more recently, the Court just held that Congress had authority under the necessary and proper clause to enact laws allowing for indeterminable commitment of federal prisoners deemed dangerous, even after their prison release dates. United States v. Comstock.

The hypocrisy of these conflicting rulings which so brazenly belittles animals as well as sexual offenders to less than deserving either of protection against those who would hurt them or protection of basic civil rights, respectively, infuriates me. Animals are just as much or more deserving of protection than human children, and sexual offenders are still people whose rights should not be trampled upon just because of the nature of their crime. I'd much rather live next to a sex offender than I would a murderer, but you don't see murderers treated as badly as people convicted of sex crimes.