The Supreme Court refused to hear a case respecting a Florida law that is uniquely discriminatory in that being homosexual will prevent adoption in all cases, trumping even being single or a convicted felon. Various states do make it quite hard for homosexuals to adopt, but laws of this nature are good targets for litigation in that their extremism can be used to take baby steps, even in these not quite gay friendly times.
For instance, Romer v. Evans concerns anti-homosexual bias, especially on status grounds alone. Would Florida bar a single grandmother from adopting her now deceased ex-lover's needy grandchild solely on account of her lesbian status? The extremity of such a decision puts this on another level from a state that finds homosexuality a major barrier to adoption, but not a complete bar. This perhaps might be a fine line, but such total lack of wiggle room troubles the courts when they are dealing with discrimination claims.
I'm not surprised the Supremes refused, but the lower court upheld the law on dubious grounds.
---
Normal Rules Don't Apply Here: Private donations are being supplied to pay for the forty million dollars that the inauguration (coronation) of President Bush (shiver) will cost. The problem is that there is another estimated $17.3 million cost to D.C. itself for security and other costs. The administration, in a move that even a member of his own party (chairman of House Government Reform Committee, which overseeing such matters) finds "simply not acceptable," instructed the city to use homeland security funds already appropriated.
The problem is that much of the money is earmarked for other purposes, leaving $11.9 million not covered. This is all highly irregular and a break from usual tradition respecting such matters, i.e., not very conservative. It is, however, par for the course for this administration, who doesn't think traditional rules quite apply to their actions.