lesbians and gays to file a petition in court requesting to adopt a child, either as a single person seeking to adopt or as joint petitioners seeking to adopt together. The court then must decide whether the petition falls within, or outside, the language of the state=s adoption code Consequently, same-gender co-parent adoption petitions have been attempted in several states in the United States Because there is no specific legislation that authorizes same-gender co-parent adoption in these states, individuals in civil-law countries may assume, incorrectly, that when the state courts issue rulings on same-gender co-parent adoptions, the courts= decisions are not >law. =20 This is a misunderstanding of the status of a court=s decision in the common-law system. When an appellate state court interprets its state=s adoption code concerning whether to allow same gender co-parent adoptions, that interpretation attaches to the adoption code and the court=s interpretation becomes the law of the state. Under the common law, in all subsequent adoption cases, the adoption code must be applied accord ing to the appellate court=s interpretation. It through this lawmaking ability of the common-law courts that the law concerning same-gender co-parent adoptions has been established in several states, even though that state=s legislation does not address, specifically, these types of adoptions Both trial and appellate courts+have ruled on same-gender co-parent adoptions 134 L Ed 2d 855(1996), in which a Colorado law was declared unconstitutional. The Colorado law had the effect of prohibiting any discrimination protection for gays and lesbians; the Supreme Court found the law violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union is preparing a lawsuit in Florida to challenge the constitutionality of the Florida statute, see Joan Lowy, Resistance Organizes Natiomvide Against Gays Adopting, THE COMMERCIAL APPEAL (Memphis, TN), Mar. 14, 1999 at A21, 1999 WL 4140884 Kamerstukken 111996797, 22770, nr. 22, p 2. Verslag van een onderzoek naar de wetgeving landen van ontangst(Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie, 1996), pp. 19-29 and pp 24-25. This quote intake interlandelijike adoptie en toepassing daanan in de praktijk in een aantal landen van herkomst misstates the status of the cases that have been decided in the u.s. state courts I To suggest that adoption petitions may not be filed by unmarried partners of the same opposite sex because the legislature has only expressed a desire for these adoptions to occur in the traditional nuclear family constellation of the 1930s ignores the reality of what is happening in the population .. Courts have long construed statutes to meet the changing needs of our growing society, providing the interpretation honors the inherent legislative purpose. In the Matter of an Adoption by S M.Y. of Camilla, 163 Misc. 2d 272, 279-80, 620 N.Y.S.2d 897, 902 This will remain the law of the state unless the legislature enacts legislation specifically prohibiting same-gender co-parent adoptions A lower trial court=s interpretation of a state statute must be followed by the parties in the case but that interpretation does not apply in any other of the states courts A state appellate court=s interpretation of a state statute becomes state-wide law, and the appellate court=s ruling must be followed in all of that state=s lower courtslesbians and gays to file a petition in court requesting to adopt a child, either as a single person seeking to adopt or as joint petitioners seeking to adopt together. The court then must decide whether the petition falls within, or outside, the language of the state=s adoption code. Consequently, same-gender co-parent adoption petitions have been attempted in several states in the United States. Because there is no specific legislation that authorizes same-gender co-parent adoptions in these states, individuals in civil-law countries may assume, incorrectly, that when the state courts issue rulings on same-gender co-parent adoptions, the courts= decisions are not >law.= 20 This is a misunderstanding of the status of a court=s decision in the common-law system. When an appellate state court interprets its state=s adoption code concerning whether to allow same￾gender co-parent adoptions,21 that interpretation attaches to the adoption code and the court=s interpretation becomes the law of the state. Under the common law, in all subsequent adoption cases, the adoption code must be applied according to the appellate court=s interpretation.22 It is through this lawmaking ability of the common-law courts that the law concerning same-gender co-parent adoptions has been established in several states, even though that state=s legislation does not address, specifically, these types of adoptions. Both trial23 and appellate courts24 have ruled on same-gender co-parent adoptions. 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996), in which a Colorado law was declared unconstitutional. The Colorado law had the effect of prohibiting any discrimination protection for gays and lesbians; the Supreme Court found the law violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union is preparing a lawsuit in Florida to challenge the constitutionality of the Florida statute, see Joan Lowy, Resistance Organizes Nationwide Against Gays Adopting, THE COMMERCIAL APPEAL (Memphis, TN), Mar. 14, 1999 at A21, 1999 WL 4140884. 20 Kamerstukken II 1996/97, 22 770, nr. 22, p. 2. Verslag van een onderzoek naar de wetgeving inzake interlandelijke adoptie en toepassing daarvan in de praktijk in een aantal landen van herkomst en landen van ontvangst (Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie, 1996), pp. 19-29 and pp. 24-25. This quote misstates the status of the cases that have been decided in the U.S. state courts. 21 To suggest that adoption petitions may not be filed by unmarried partners of the same or opposite sex because the legislature has only expressed a desire for these adoptions to occur in the traditional nuclear family constellation of the 1930's ignores the reality of what is happening in the population. . . . Courts have long construed statutes to meet the changing needs of our growing society, providing the interpretation honors the inherent legislative purpose. In the Matter of an Adoption by S.M.Y. of Camilla, 163 Misc. 2d 272, 279-80, 620 N.Y.S.2d 897, 902 (1994). 22 This will remain the law of the state unless the legislature enacts legislation specifically prohibiting same-gender co-parent adoptions. 23 A lower trial court=s interpretation of a state statute must be followed by the parties in the case, but that interpretation does not apply in any other of the state=s courts. 24 A state appellate court=s interpretation of a state statute becomes state-wide law, and the appellate court=s ruling must be followed in all of that state=s lower courts