Like Tim said

It's two steps forward, one step back.

On the heels of an Arkansas ruling striking down a ban on gays and lesbians in that state being foster parents comes the Supreme Court's refusal to heal a decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Florida's ban on homosexuals serving as adoptive parents.

Without comment, the high court declined to consider whether the law, which was adopted at the height of entertainer Anita Bryant's anti-homosexual campaign, unfairly singled out gays and lesbians in violation of their constitutional rights.

The law states, "No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual." No other state categorically excludes gays or lesbians from adopting.

In its January 2004 decision, after acknowledging that the issue is the welfare of the child, the Appeals Court proceeded to ignore all the knowledge we have showing that there is no demonstrable difference between straight parents and homosexual parents in providing a stable, loving household and that children who grow up with gay or lesbian parents are every bit as well-adjusted and healthy as those with straight parents. Instead, it bizarrely ruled that

"[o]penly homosexual households represent a very recent phenomenon, and sufficient time has not yet passed to permit any scientific study of how children raised in those households fare as adults."

That is obviously an evasion, not a reason. First, because the comparative studies of children that revealed the above facts also did not follow the children of straight parents into adulthood, any problems emerging later which could be hypothesized for children of gay or lesbian parents could with equal logic be proposed for children of straight parents. Second, while openly gay and lesbian families may be relatively recent, the experience of children with homosexual parents is not. There is more than ample data to brand the Court's finding a result of either ignorance, bigotry, or a desperate desire to avoid dealing with the issue altogether.

The fact is, this law was the result of hatred and panic. The chief sponsor of the law, one Curtis Peterson,

said at the time the purpose of the legislation was to send a message to gays and lesbians that "we're really tired of you. We wish you'd go back into the closet."

It's a hatred and panic that the Appeals Court is prepared to let stand.

As for the Supreme Court, I suspect that a desire to avoid the controversy figured heavily in the decision not to hear the case. It's last gay rights ruling was in 2003, when it struck down sodomy laws and declared that due process and privacy rights apply to gays. The reaction was swift and severe; even one of its own members, Antonin Scalia if I recall correctly, accused the majority in his dissent of "surrendering to the homosexual agenda." I think they are now gun shy.

So gays and lesbians in Florida still cannot adopt children - even though, if you can grasp this, they can be foster parents. Oh, but the excuse is, foster parenting is supposed to be temporary. Yes, snaps back reality, but in many cases, including some involved here, "temporary" has meant several years. And by the way, children in foster care are usually thought of as at greater risk - so why it is okay for them, at such a difficult, vulnerable time for them, to be temporarily cared for by homosexuals, but it's not okay for them to be in stable, long-term relationships with those same parents as adoptees?

No, don't bother answering; you'll only make your head hurt.

Still, despite this, think again: Two steps forward, one step back. That also means that after every three steps we're a step further along the road. Keep on keepin' on.