Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Are Lesbians and Gay Men a Minority?

by Fred Fejes, PhD
Professor, School of Communication and Multimedia Studies
Florida Atlantic University
© 2008 Fred Fejes
According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a national gay-rights advocacy organization,   approximately  570  colleges and universities have  explicit policies  protecting lesbian  and gay students, staff and faculty from discrimination on the basis  of   sexuality.  A smaller but growing  number of schools  have policies granting  partner benefits to lesbian and gay staff  and also  recognizing gender identity as a protected class.  Not only private  institutions  and universities in the liberal areas of  the  North  and the West Coast  have such policies.  Red state public institutions  such as the University of Mississippi. the University  of Alabama, Auburn University, Texas A&M, the University of Nebraska and the University of South Carolina have   non-discrimination policies. The changes in  official attitudes  on lesbian and gay men on many campuses are impressive. Less than fifty years   ago at many  universities, faculty even suspected of being   homosexual were typically given the choice of  either   resigning  or immediate dismissal.

Such changes reflect not only  the growing visibility of lesbian and gay students, staff and faculty, but the  importance   now placed   on diversity on college campuses. In the increasingly complex and globalized  21st century society,  educational leaders   recognize that diversity, rather than a burdensome problem,  is  something to foster and sustain.  But while  diversity in general is clear and valued goal,  the  status of lesbians and gay men on campus   often remains clouded.
Whether lesbians and gay men fall under the broad umbrella of  diversity is often  contested.  

Current diversity efforts are the successors to  affirmative action   and other  programs undertaken by many   institutions.  Often in response to court  orders,  these programs were meant to  correct  decades old discrimination in  student admission and faculty and administrative hiring.  Such corrective efforts, and the laws behind them,  were outcomes  of what political sociologist John Skrentny has  called   The Minority Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2002)   or that period  the 1950s -1970s when America confronted  its shameful  treatment of marginalized groups.   The  civil rights movement of that era  transformed American political culture by  creating a new and  powerful national narrative about minority group, identity,  oppression and struggle in the United States.

While the 1964 Civil Rights Act, outlawed discrimination on the basis of  “race, color, religion, sex, (and) national origin”   and theoretically covered all American citizens,  its implementation  focused on those groups  that lawmakers  and policymakers saw as particularly  victimized by discrimination.   In addition to African-Americans,  women, Americans of Hispanic and Asian ancestry  Native-Americans and, later,  the physically disabled were seen as conspicuous victims of discrimination.     Using   what Skrentny terms  the “black analogy,”  government policymakers, the media  and   the public in general placed these designated groups within the larger narrative  of minority group oppression  and victimhood  that,  “while unspoken, undebated  and unlegislated, nevertheless powerfully shaped policy.” 

Like these other groups,  lesbians and gay men met the  requirements of a minority group deserving protection from discrimination. They were subject to  discriminatory local, state and federal laws and policies. Earlier than other minority groups,   pioneer homosexual rights activists felt a strong kinship with the  growing civil rights movement and  were  the first group to copy their tactics of peaceful protest.  By the   mid 1970s  there was a  growing recognition  that lesbians and gay men were  a minority.
Much in the same way  that science stripped theories of  racial inferiority of their legitimacy,    medical  and scientific authorities  rejected earlier  theories pathologizing homosexuals. Similar to laws on segregation,  laws  restricting the rights of  homosexuals were now viewed as outmoded and unjust  and states   moved to repeal them.  Cities and counties across the country banned discrimination at the local level and  a number of states  moved to passing similar  laws.  Federal legislation was  introduced in Congress. Jimmy Carter, elected  President in 1976 on a platform of human rights, promised  attention to the concerns of America’s lesbian and gay  community. Soon after his inauguration  gay rights leaders were invited to the White House  to  discuss their issues.

However, for lesbians  and gay men, all of this progress came  to a sudden halt in the spring of 1977. Led by entertainer Anita Bryant,  local religious and conservatives  in Miami-Dade County Florida   mounted a  vigorous campaign to repeal a  county gay rights law. The successful effort attracted national and even internal attention.  The  theories and images of homosexuality as a sickness and perversion, now joined with condemnation by  religious conservatives,  still had a very  powerful hold on the public imagination. Similar successful campaigns the following year  in St. Paul Minnesota, Wichita, Kansas and Eugene Oregon  harbingered a national movement.  National political figures previously  supportive of gay rights  quickly distanced themselves.  The media treated  gay activists’ claims to minority status with increasing skepticism  Even lesbian and gay leaders themselves  recognized the futility of  casting their claims in the narrative of minority rights.
If lesbians and gay men were no  longer  viewed as a minority deserving  of protection against discrimination, what was their status in American society?  Was the progress on gay rights to be replaced by an era  of  Jim-Crow style legislation aimed at lesbians and gay men.  It seemed so. States from Alabama to New Jersey began recriminalizing homosexuality and considering  legislation to  restrict further the civil rights of lesbians and gay men. 

The showdown came in California in the  1978 elections.  Conservative activists, hoping to incite another Miami-style campaign,    placed a  measure on the  ballot  banning lesbians and gay men from teaching in public schools.  Early polls  showed that more than  60% of California voters supported  the ban. Gay activists feared  the referendum was only the beginning of a larger effort  to restrict  them  from other areas of public employment and state regulated professions.  However the  measure’s proponents  had overreached; they wrote their proposal so broadly that even heterosexual teachers  favoring  gay rights  could be  fired. Gay activists  opposing the measure  were joined not only by liberal and union leaders, but also   by noted conservatives such as Ronald Reagan  who saw it  as a serious attack on the rights of all California  citizens.  The measure lost by  more than  a million votes 
Since  1978  the question of the legal status of lesbian  and gay  men and their rights has been fought  in a cultural trench warfare between gay activists and conservative political and religious activists. Still  the  visibility, prominence  and vitality of the lesbian and  gay community have  grown. Lesbians and gay men  are regarded as important segments of many communities. In  the area of business and commerce, not only are they viewed as a significant  and growing market, many major corporations hoping to attract them as valuable employees offer  the recognition,  protections and benefits that the state is typically unwilling to grant. According to the HRC  433   of the Fortune 500 companies explicitly  ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, including not only companies like Microsoft and General Motors, but  also Wal-mart and Winn-Dixie. In higher education, an institution’s  recognition and support of its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered faculty, staff and students is a  mark of its commitment to diversity and  quality.  All   62 members of the prestigious  Association of American Universities (AAU) have non-discrimination policies and more than  two thirds provide partner benefits.
According to the HRC   approximately  570  colleges and universities have  explicit policies  protecting lesbian  and gay students, staff and faculty from discrimination on the basis  of   sexuality.  A smaller but growing  number of schools  have policies granting  partner benefits to lesbian and gay staff  and also  recognizing gender identity as a protected class.  Not only private  institutions  and universities in the liberal areas of  the  North  and the West Coast  have such policies.  Red state public institutions  such as the University of Mississippi. the University  of Alabama, Auburn University, Texas A&M, the University of Nebraska and the University of South Carolina have   non-discrimination policies. All   62 members of the prestigious  Association of American Universities (AAU) including the University of Florida have non-discrimination policies and more than  two thirds provide partner benefits.  The changes in  official attitudes  on lesbian and gay men on many campuses are impressive. Less than fifty years   ago at many  universities, faculty even suspected of being   homosexual were typically given the choice of  either   resigning  or immediate dismissal.
Still, although  570 colleges and universities have explicit polices addressing   their lesbian and gay concerns, and these include the University of Miami, Florida International University, Nova University, Broward, Miami-Dade ad Palm Beach Colleges,  the other approximately 3,700  higher education institutions  in America do not.   Among those institutions is  Florida Atlantic University.  One can only read   these  institutions’  lack of minimal protections as  a  disregard for its lesbian and gay faculty,  staff and students.  Unfortunately not only  lesbians  and gay men, but the institution itself    pays the costs.
It costs the institution top faculty, administrative and staff. Most institutions compete nationally for top talent. For  lesbian and gay employees,   the issue of protections and benefits are important and  can  either attract them   or send them away.  For example, in 2006   Robert W. Carpick, a leading researcher in nanotechnology left the University of Wisconsin for the University of Pennsylvania.  In 2003  he had married his partner of ten years in Canada, however the University was unable to offer him partner benefits due to  a  state measure banning gay marriages. The revenue  from research contracts  he took with him to Pennsylvania dwarfed  the estimated cost of the benefits.

It costs the institution in  students.    For many lesbian and gay youth in America, “coming out” or   acknowledging  one’s sexuality is  a high school experience and many high schools  provide  them a  safe and supportive environment. In considering  colleges, these students  look to see if  they  are  openly  welcomed  at a university and if their  concerns and safety  as openly lesbian and gay students are taken seriously.   Publications like The Advocate College Guide for LGBT Students and websites like  rank various colleges and universities on their   policies and supportive campus environment. Lesbian and gay students  listen very carefully to what an institution says, and does not say, about people like them.

It cost the institution donor support. Many lesbian and gay baby boomers who remembered the gay rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s are now organizing their estates.  These  alumni also  look very closely at what their  universities says and do  not say about  people like them.  After the death of gay activist  Phil Zwickler from AIDS in 1991  his family set up a foundation to commemorate his work. Part of the foundation’s effort is funding a  program of research fellowships at Cornel University. Richard Weiland, one of the first employees at Microsoft who died in 2006,  made a $60 million bequest to Stanford University. A significant portion of that was designated to support the University’s Lesbian and Gay Resource Center.
It costs  a university  any claims of  quality. As noted above,  a proactive stance on  diversity, including sexuality diversity,  is a mark of  a top echelon university.    Thus it  is hard to take  an institution’s clams  to excellence and diversity seriously  when all it can  offer  its lesbian and gay faculty, administrators, staff and students are   generic assertions  about “not discriminating against anybody.”  This is little  more than an academic  version of  a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Finally it costs the institution any claim of community leadership.  As Richard Florida  noted in his  research on the “creative class,”  a distinguishing feature of  communities in the forefront of  technological and biological  research and innovation  is an open  and  welcoming attitude towards diversity, including sexual diversity.  What message is  sent   about a community   when an institution devoted to  an  open and unfettered search for knowledge, and in many cases a community’s major employer, carefully hedges  its position on  issues of sexuality  and its own  lesbian, and gay faculty, staff and students.

In  the strictly technical  sense, lesbians and  gay men are not a minority, or at least no federal law has yet defined them as such.  However they are a vital,  visible part of the life of many  colleges  and  universities. Those institutions that recognize and welcome them benefit  from their talents and energies.  Moreover these  institutions send out a real message about their commitment to diversity and  quality. These universities are the leaders in higher education.  Hopefully their model will be followed  by those institutions that seek  to move forward. 

Fred Fejes, PhD
Professor, School of Communication and Multimedia Studies
Florida Atlantic University
777 Glades Road
Boca Raton FL 33431
office: 561-297-3858
cell:  954-465-3262
fax 561 297-2615

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Improving the Lives of LGBT Older Adults

A new report available from MAP and SAGE, Improving the Lives of LGBT Older Adults, shows that contrary to stereotypes, LGBT elders are more likely to live in poverty, face social and community isolation, and lack appropriate health care and long-term care. The report examines the unique barriers and disparities faced by LGBT elders. Momentum ReportIt also offers detailed and practical solutions, providing a roadmap for LGBT and aging advocates, policymakers, and anyone interested in ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to age with dignity and respect.

The report was authored by MAP and SAGE, in partnership with the American Society on Aging, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, and the Center for American Progress, with a foreword from AARP. MAP and SAGE officially launched the report last week in Chicago at the national Aging in America conference, and it has received coverage from, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, and other media.

To access the report, go to: To download other MAP reports, please visit

We've also created a presence for MAP on Facebook and Twitter, to extend the reach of our work.

Report Abstract

Most Americans already face challenges as they age, but LGBT older adults have the added burden of a lifetime of stigma; familial relationships that generally lack legal recognition under the law; and unequal treatment under laws, programs and services designed to support and protect older Americans. The report examines three areas of particular difficulty for LGBT elders.

1. LGBT elders are less financially secure. LGBT older adults are poorer and less financially secure than American elders as a whole due to a lifetime of discrimination compounded by major laws and safety net programs that fail to protect and support LGBT elders equally with their heterosexual peers. The report examines the following key programs and their impacts: Social Security, Medicaid and long-term care, tax-qualified retirement plans, employee pensions, retiree health insurance benefits, estate taxes, veterans' benefits, and inheritance laws.

2. LGBT elders find it more difficult to achieve good health and healthcare. The report examines major reasons for this, including: LGBT elders' health disparities are overlooked; there is limited government support for the families and partners of LGBT elders; health care environments often are inhospitable to LGBT elders; nursing homes often fail to protect LGBT elders; and visitation policies and medical decision-making laws often exclude the families and partners of LGBT elders.

3. LGBT elders are more likely to face social isolation. Despite a high level of resilience and strong friendship networks, social isolation has still been found to be higher among LGBT older adults. In addition to being more likely to live alone, LGBT elders also are more likely to feel unwelcome in, or be unwelcome in, mainstream aging programs such as senior centers and volunteer centers. They also often lack support from, and feel unwelcome in, the broader LGBT community. Finally, housing discrimination adds to the challenges LGBT elders face in connecting to their communities and may separate LGBT elders from loved friends or partners.

In addition to examining the challenges faced by LGBT elders, the report also provides detailed and comprehensive policy analysis and recommendations.

Ineke Mushovic
Executive Director
Movement Advancement Project

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

West Palm Beach votes in support of allowing gay adoption

By Andrew Abramson, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

March 23, 2010

WEST PALM BEACH - The city commission took a stance against the state's ban on gay adoption, voting unanimously today to support a repeal of the ban.

Florida is the only state in the country that doesn't allow gay adoption and state representative Mary Brandenburg has already co-sponsored a bill in the Florida legislature that would repeal the ban.

Lake Worth and Wilton Manors previously passed similar resolutions supporting the repeal.

"It seems to me absolutely unbelievable that 49 states in this country have seen fit to pass laws that allow same-sex adoption, and Florida is back in the dark ages on this," Mayor Lois Frankel said. "The issue should be what's in the best interest of the child."

In Florida, gay couples can be foster parents, but can't adopt.

The Rev. Mark Boykin of the Church of All Nations of Boca Raton led a protest of four members outside City Hall, and then blasted the West Palm Beach resolution.

"There are so many issues and problems in the City of West Palm Beach," Boykin said. "The mayor and city commissioners need to be focused on solving these issues and not undermining the fabric of a nuclear family."

Rand Hoch, who represented the county's human rights council, said "there are many more children eligible for adoption then there are married heterosexual families wiling to adopt them. The ban is immoral because it harms children."

"This will give 3,000 children a much greater chance at loving, nurturing, caring home," said Commissioner Jeri Muoio, who brought forward the resolution.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Divided emotions, opinions on 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy

By John Lantigua, Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 14, 2010

LAKE WORTH — In February, Isabel, a specialist with the 482nd Air Force Reserve, based in Homestead, was due to be deployed to Iraq.

Her life partner, Nicole, a civilian, was worried and not only about Isabel's safety.

"I said to myself, 'If something happens to her, will they even contact me?' " Nicole said. "My name is there to call in case of emergency, but I am not legally her family."

Isabel's deployment was eventually canceled, but she is still concerned.

"Nicole is not eligible for any of the benefits that spouses are entitled to," said Isabel, 26. "Married soldiers get more money when they are mobilized and the military also provides health, educational, housing benefits for your spouse. I am serving my country and this is very unfair."

The young woman is not really named Isabel. She uses a false name so as not to violate the current military policy regarding gay and lesbian soldiers. "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" championed by President Bill Clinton prohibits homosexual soldiers from identifying themselves as such, but also enjoins the military from asking them about their sexual orientation.

Adopted in 1993 it was seen as a middle ground between the previous policy that banned gays from the military altogether, and outright acceptance of homosexuals in the services.

Now the Obama administration wants the policy scrapped and for gays to serve openly. The ensuing debate has provoked strong opinions on both sides.

Suspicion can lead to investigation

Both active and former members of the military who are gay or lesbian, and who were interviewed for this article, all favor the eventual changing of the policy and say homosexuals should serve without hiding who they are.

Philippe Kalmanson, 40, of Lake Worth, wishes the change had come years ago, before anti-gay policies cost him his military career. He served almost four years in the Air Force and two in the Army. His release papers reflect an honorable discharge, various service ribbons and commendations, including the good conduct medal. But his last days in uniform, in 1991, weren't pleasant.

Kalmanson, a specialist with administrative duties, had recently returned from service in Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War, when he was summoned to an interview by military criminal investigators at Fort Bragg, N.C..

He had no idea why.

"It turned out that a military friend of mine based in South Carolina was being investigated for drug use," said Kalmanson. "They searched his room and found letters I had written to him from Saudi."

The men had met while serving in Korea two years before. The letters indicated they had been lovers.

According to an investigator's report, Kalmanson was detained for at least five hours.

The transcript of the interrogation details every cigarette, cup of coffee and Dr Pepper. Kalmanson confessed to the affair and was drummed out of the Army.

He says he met many gay men in the military, but any social activity among them was always away from their work and their military posts.

"You don't go into the military so you can be checking out guys in the shower," Kalmanson says. "It isn't like that."

The "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy would have probably saved his career, but he believes the military should go farther, especially given the need for manpower.

"Changing the policy wouldn't make much a difference," he says. "People gossip about who is gay anyway. And right now they need the bodies."

Stephanie, 31, of West Palm Beach, is gay and served in the Navy from 2000 to 2007, including almost two years at sea. She left as a lieutenant.

She says gay sailors sometimes revealed their sexual orientation, but rarely.

"You would stand watch at night on the bridge and you had time to talk," she says. "You had to know who to trust. It could be used against you, you could be discharged and lose all your benefits."

She said straight sailors gossiped about who might be gay "but there was never any kind of hate in it. Men and women who were thought to be gay weren't reviled by their shipmates."

She thinks most in the ranks would accept a change in policy, but officers at the top are conservative and will be harder to convince.

"And Obama needs to keep the military leaders happy right now given Iraq and Afghanistan," she says. "It will take time."

Among straight members of the military family, opinions are much more divided.

'This is a civil rights issue'

Ben Lubin, son of West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel, who served as a Marine captain in Iraq and Afghanistan, is straight and favors changing the policy immediately.

"Gay and lesbian people have fought and died for this country in wars all through our history," he said. "This is a civil rights issue. Women and blacks are allowed to serve today and they weren't at one time. Some day people will look back and say how could those people have embraced that policy. It's unjust."

Lubin said he believes many in the ranks wouldn't care, although he admits for some it will be a very contentious issue.

"But it's not up to them," he said. "Policy is made by elected officials and changing the policy is the right thing to do."

But Karl, 52, of Boca Raton, an Army National Guard sergeant who has served twice in Afghanistan, believes any change would have to be accomplished gradually, and possibly not at all. Karl is an assumed name because he is not authorized to speak to the press.

"I was raised in New York, was exposed to many different lifestyles, and it doesn't matter to me," he said. "But I've heard a lot of discussion and a lot of people in the ranks are against changing the policy."

He said many soldiers come from the more conservative parts of the country and are not sympathetic to gay rights.

"In some cases they have religious beliefs that cause them to have those positions," he said. "You also have these 'A type' personalities who are very against it. I guess you'd call them homophobic. The gay person won't be treated equally. Some of these guys just won't accept it."

That was once said about blacks. They were formally integrated into the military in 1948, when the U.S. wasn't at war.

Karl worries it will be harder for gays, and especailly now in wartime.

"In combat I need everybody focused on the same battle scheme," he said. "I need everybody working as a unit and gay soldiers serving openly could affect that. I don't believe women should serve in combat for that reason. Male soldiers tend to be overly protective of female soldiers and those males don't do what they are supposed to do.

"The dynamic would be different with gay soldiers but it could be a distraction," he said. "To make it work you would have to do a lot of education first. Maybe it would work in time. Maybe. For that reason I don't think it will pass now."

Karl said he is sympathetic to an immediate change to give everyone the same benefits. He said that question could be handled administratively so that no one in the field would have to know.

"Yes, I agree that's the fair thing and there should be a way to do it now," he said.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Florida must end bigotry against gays and lesbians

by Tony Plakas
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
March 10, 2010

Florida is the only state that still bans all gay men and lesbians from adopting children, although they can serve as foster parents. Even though the ban is most likely to be overturned in the courts soon, the Lake Worth City Commission was correct last week to unanimously direct state legislators to overturn the 1977 law that prohibits children in need from being adopted by gays.

Last year, a Monroe County circuit judge declared that the 1977 law "arose out of unveiled expressions of bigotry." Anita Bryant, a woman who once served our nation orange juice, began using her prominence to sell fear, waging a successful campaign that brands her to this day as an early and vocal opponent of homosexuality. However, few are aware that the groundwork to make Florida's government unfriendly to gays and lesbians was laid more than a decade before her rise and fall.

The 1963 Florida Legislature mandated a Legislative Investigation Committee to report on "the extent of infiltration into agencies supported by state funds by practicing homosexuals, the effect thereof on said agencies and the public, and the policies of various state agencies in dealing therewith."

In January 1964, taxpayer money was used to print and distribute a dark and ugly pamphlet, "Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida," "to be of value to all citizens; for every parent and every individual concerned with the moral climate of the state." The late Palm Beach Circuit Judge Marvin Mounts gave a rare copy of the document to me before he retired so I would always remember how far we have come. But it has been more a reminder of how far we have to go and how much we need to educate.

The booklet is a veritable Nazi-like propaganda piece, complete with obscene pictures and a "glossary of homosexual terms and deviant acts" that serves as a list of epithets that unquestionably intertwine homosexuality with pedophilia. Most of the bibliography cites research stemming from the Holocaust, and the leaflet ends with recommendations to "radically reduce the number of homosexuals preying upon the youth of Florida."

And it continues to this day. In January, a bill filed in the Florida House and Senate would revise the state's financial incentive program to provide tax credits to the film industry if filmmakers avoid certain subject matters, including the depiction of "nontraditional family values."

The time has come for the Florida Legislature to address continuing policies that demonize the gay community and atone for nearly a half a century of state-sponsored bigotry. However, it doesn't look like it is going to stop anytime soon, particularly when so many wish to gain politically for their stances on homosexuality.

Tony Plakas is CEO of Compass Inc., a gay and lesbian outreach center in Lake Worth.

E-mail Tony at

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Lake Worth City Commission Opposes Gay Adoption Ban

Out In West Palm Beach

March 2, 2010

(Lake Worth, Florida) On the opening day of the Florida Legislative Session, Lake Worth City Commissioners unanimously voted to direct legislators to repeal a Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians since 1977.

The resolution, which was introduced by Lake Worth City Commissioner Cara Jennings, calls for state lawmakers to repeal Section 63.042 of Florida Statute which provides, "No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual."

Youth intervention specialist Donald Cavanaugh spoke in favor of the resolution, as did several other individuals affiliated with COMPASS -- Palm Beach County's GLBT community center.

Two bills, SB 102 and HB 3, were introduced by Senator Nan Rich (D-Sunrise) and Representative Mary Brandenburg (D-West Palm Beach) to repeal the adoption ban.

Florida is the only state with a law prohibiting gay men and lesbians - couples and individuals - from adopting children.

Three Florida courts have ruled that there is no rational, scientific or moral reason that sexual orientation should be a barrier to adopting children and that the ban on adoption by gay men and lesbians is unconstitutional, according to retired judge Rand Hoch, President and Founder of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.

The Council is a local nonprofit organization which is dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

"Three court decisions have now held that the ban on gay adoptions is unconstitutional," said Hoch. "Since the rulings apply only in Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, the legislature must now take action to permit gay men and lesbians to adopt children throughout the state of Florida."

"If the adoption ban is not repealed by the legislature this session, ultimately this unjust law will be overturned by the Florida Supreme Court," said Hoch.

Securing Our Children's Rights (SOCR) is the leading statewide organization lobbying for the repeal of Florida's law. For more information about SOCR, go to:

The ACLU of Florida has also undertaken a campaign to end the adoption ban. For more information on the ACLU's campaign, go to:

© 1997-2010 Ethan Interactive, Inc.