I Was Barred From Adopting for Opposing Gender Transitioning—Until a Court Overturned the Decision
Every year in Oregon, thousands of children touch the state's foster care system. In fiscal 2023, children who eventually leave the system spent a median time of 23.4 months in the state's custody. For those eventually adopted, the latest available data show that the median time was even longer— 34.6 months. And every month, the state houses some children in 'temporary lodgings'—an overnight stay in a hotel or a night on the floor of a social worker's office, for example.
I want to help these children. I want to open my home to adopt a sibling pair under 10, loving and caring for them as best I can. But Oregon wouldn't let me because of my faith—that is, until July 24, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked the state's actions against me, determining that 'Oregon's policy violates the First Amendment.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why 17-year-olds are exempt from new Indy youth curfew passed after mass shooting
Indianapolis officials have made the youth curfew two hours earlier for all children younger than 17 for at least the rest of this year. About a month after a July 5 mass shooting left two teenagers dead, the Indianapolis City-County Council voted Aug. 11 to make the youth curfew stricter effective immediately. An initial proposal that included 17-year-olds was amended at the last minute by Democratic councilors who felt that older teens should be granted more independence. The new rules mean that children ages 15 and 16 won't be allowed in public unsupervised past 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and past 9 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays. Children under 15 will face a 9 p.m. curfew every day. The city's emergency curfew will remain in place for 120 days, which means the council must decide in early December whether to extend or relax the policy. Teens who are 17 will still be subject to the state curfew of 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 11 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays. The 25-person council's Democratic majority passed the amendment that excluded 17-year-olds from the new curfew despite the opposition of all six Republican councilors. "The sun doesn't even go down in the summer until near 10 p.m., and I don't think we're putting ourselves in a good position pushing 17-year-olds to break curfew at 10-10:30 p.m.," said Councilor Jared Evans, who introduced the amendment at Monday's council meeting. Republicans like Councilor Joshua Bain said that excluding 17-year-olds from the new policy weakens the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to keep people safe. "It is not the goal of IMPD to go around arresting every 17-year-old that's out at night," Bain said. "This is a targeted way for them to get in between a 17-year-old that's about to make a really bad decision and possibly ruin the rest of their life." The ordinance doesn't create a criminal offense for children who break curfew, but it does grant police the authority to detain them. The policy carves out several exceptions for kids who are returning home from work, a school activity, a religious event or activities protected by the First Amendment such as political protests, among others. IMPD Chief Christopher Bailey said he was unbothered by the change exempting 17-year-olds from a stricter curfew. (He mentioned in jest that his daughter, who is nearly 17 and has been criticizing her father at home over the new curfew, would be "very pleased.") "My direction to the officers is not some sweep of everyone that's out," Bailey said. "It's really behavioral-based." Democratic Councilor Dan Boots spoke bluntly in support of more leniency for 17-year-olds. "Seventeen-year-olds are rising seniors in high school, a step away from being able to vote and be drafted and killed for our country," Boots said. "I think they have a right to stay out past 9 to go to a movie and come back." Republican Councilor Michael-Paul Hart, who also voted against the last-minute change, introduced a new proposal Monday night that would fine parents whose children violate curfew. State law allows the city to impose thousands of dollars in fines, according to city attorney Brandon Beeler, but it's unclear how harshly violators would be prosecuted. Hart's proposal would give parents one written warning for a first violation, followed by a $500 fine for a second time and a $1,500 fine for each subsequent occurrence. Councilors will consider the proposal in committee later this month before a likely vote in September. The harsher curfew change comes after hundreds of unsupervised teens lingered downtown in the hours following the Fourth of July fireworks show, culminating in a mass shooting after midnight that killed Xavion Jackson, 16, and Azareaon S. Cole, 15. Two other teens and three adults were also injured. Four teenagers ranging from 13 to 17 years old have been charged in connection with the shooting for illegally carrying guns.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Ex-Kentucky clerk Kim Davis asks Supreme Court to overturn same-sex marriage ruling: ‘Legal fiction'
Kim Davis, the former Kentucky clerk who violated the rights of a gay couple, has petitioned the Supreme Court to revisit its landmark decision on same-sex marriage – slamming the ruling as a 'legal fiction.' Davis, 59, served five days in jail in 2015 after she refused to issue a marriage license to gay couple David Ermold and David Moore shortly after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. The former Rowan County, Ky., clerk was subsequently ordered to pay a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages and $260,000 in attorneys' fees to the married couple. Advertisement She asked the high court – in a 90-page filing last month – to review a lower court's 2022 finding that she violated Ermold and Moore's constitutional right to marry and revisit its decision in the same-sex marriage case. 3 Davis claims her First Amendment rights were violated when she was jailed and ordered to pay damages to the gay couple she refused to grant a marriage license to. AP 'If ever a case deserved review, the first individual who was thrown in jail post-Obergefell for seeking accommodation for her religious beliefs should be it,' Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit law firm representing Davis, wrote in the petition. Advertisement 'Davis was jailed, haled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported emotional distress,' the filing continued, arguing that Davis was protected by her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion in denying the marriage licences. The petition also asks the justices to consider 'whether Obergefell v. Hodges … and the legal fiction of substantive due process, should be overturned.' 3 The Supreme Court previously turned down a chance to review Davis' case in 2020. REUTERS 'Kim Davis' case underscores why the US Supreme Court should overturn the wrongly decided Obergefell v. Hodges opinion because it threatens the religious liberty of Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman,' Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said in a statement. Advertisement 'Obergefell cannot just push the First Amendment aside to punish individuals for their beliefs about marriage,' Staver added. 'The First Amendment precludes making the choice between your faith and your livelihood.' 'The High Court now has the opportunity to finally overturn this egregious opinion from 2015.' 3 The Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. REUTERS William Powell, an attorney for Ermold and Moore, told The Post that he is 'confident' the Supreme Court won't take up Davis' case. Advertisement 'We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention,' Powell, who serves as senior counsel at Georgetown University's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, said in a statement. 'Marriage equality is settled law,' he added. The Supreme Court previously denied a 2020 petition from Davis to consider her appeal.
Axios
6 hours ago
- Axios
Trump admin claims Social Security, Medicare at risk if tariffs blocked
The Trump administration on Monday told a federal appellate court that overturning the president's tariffs could lead to a 1929-style depression that would endanger federal benefits like Social Security and Medicare. Why it matters: The letter from Solicitor General D. John Sauer and assistant attorney general Brett Shumate claims the U.S. would be on the hook to repay trillions of dollars it hasn't actually been paid, from deals that haven't yet been fully signed. Catch up quick: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is due to rule soon on whether to uphold or overturn the Court of International Trade's late-May ruling striking down most of Trump's tariffs. Oral arguments were almost two weeks ago, but on Monday Sauer and Shumate filed a supplemental letter offering what they said were fresh reasons to preserve the tariffs. What they're saying: " If the United States were forced to pay back the trillions of dollars committed to us, America could go from strength to failure the moment such an incorrect decision took effect," they wrote. "These deals for trillions of dollars have been reached, and other countries have committed to pay massive sums of money. If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements, the President believes that a forced dissolution of the agreements could lead to a 1929-style result. "In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened." Context: The various tariff agreements struck with the likes of Japan, South Korea and the EU include pledges to establish huge investment funds to finance projects in the United States, more than $1 trillion in total. But those aren't payments to the U.S., they're financing for future projects, and even there disputes are already arising about how much actual money the foreign governments will spend. The intrigue: Trump administration officials have said they have plans in place to replace the existing tariff program if the courts ultimately block it. But Sauer and Shumate's letter says those substitutes wouldn't be nearly as effective — something the administration has not conceded before. "Other tariff authorities that the President could potentially use are short-term, not nearly as powerful, and would render America captive to the abuses that it has endured from far more aggressive countries," they wrote.
