Gay Adoption - Research Paper Example

?596385 Gay Adoption There was a time when gay adoption was talked about in terms of whether or not it should be allowed. Some people thought that gay couples could not be good parents because of their lifestyle. Those against gay adoption say that heterosexual parents are more suited to be parents. Children need both a mother and a father. People opposed to gay adoption also make a moral and/or religious argument against same-sex adoption. This argument included the premise that if gay adoption were allowed, well then gay marriage would soon follow. Now gay marriage seems to be becoming more acceptable according to a poll done by The Associated Press and the National Constitution Center. “Fifty-three percent of the 1,000 adults surveyed believe the government should give legal recognition to marriages between couples of the same sex . . . Forty-four percent were opposed” (CBS News). Gay adoption actually is legal in most states, but that does not stop some states and some adoption agencies making it difficult for same-sex couples to adopt. This is despite the large number—over half a million—children languishing in foster care ready and wanting to be adopted. Those in favor of allowing same-sex couples to adopt cite the high numbers of children in foster care needing forever homes. They also claim that it is discrimination not to allow gay couples who have been deemed suitable parents, and who can provide a loving and stable home, to adopt. The courts agreed with them and laws have recently been established that prohibit discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. Because of these anti-discrimination laws, many states no longer allow adoption agencies to discriminate against a gay couple seeking to adopt a child based on the couple’s sexual orientation, but that argument has taken a 360 degree turn. Adoption agencies that oppose gay adoptions say that they are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. Some states refuse to recognize same-sex couples’ adoptions in other states. In the end, what has really occurred is a stubborn right-wing anti-gay faction in this country rejects any belief but their own and will not recognize the rights of same-sex couples to adopt children. They refuse to budge and use every tactic they can to promote their agenda even if it means harming children. Several religious adoption agencies have claimed that since they believe homosexuality is against the teaching of the bible, they should not be required to place children in the homes of gay couples who wish to adopt them. Todd Flowerday says, “Historically the Catholic Church has invested a great deal of its charitable efforts in the care of orphaned children, but recently adoption has become a battleground for concerns about religious freedom. The church is reluctant to place children with parents it deems inadequate—most prominently gay and lesbian couples—and these policies often run afoul of state antidiscrimination laws. Rather than compromise, some Catholic agencies get out of the adoption business altogether” (Flowerday). That, however, has not affected the number of children being adopted. Many other adoption agencies, perfectly willing to follow the law and to continue to match children needing homes with parents who want them, have stepped in. But, another problem has arisen because of this issue. After a Catholic diocese in Rockford, Illinois dropped its state contract with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Service, three other dioceses sued to be exempt from the law that prohibits Catholic, or any other, adoption service from discriminating against gay and lesbian couples. In fact, these adoption agencies must assist these couples in their search for a child. With the injunction in place for who knows how long, the adoption agencies in those three dioceses can continue to deny same-sex couples their rights to adopt a child. What really bothers some people is that instead of thinking of the children as one would expect the Catholic Church to do, they continue to push their biased agenda. Flowerday cannot help but be “frustrated with the official pronouncements from the church on the subject of adoption. When the topic is raised, it is often in the service of a political agenda, and usually with a focus on the needs of adults. There's little confusion about what kind of family the church believes children should have: two parents, a mother and a father, married, stable, and faithful. But I hear too little from the church about the scandal of one child with no parents” (Flowerday). It is not just Catholic or even religious institutions who operate adoption agencies doing the discrimination though. In 2004 Adoption.com was sued by a California gay couple who alleged that the website discriminated against them “by excluding all same-gender couples from utilizing its services.  One of those services allows prospective adoptive parents who pay a fee to post personal information about themselves for birth mothers who are seeking adoptive parents for their children” (Wright). The couple sued on the premise that the Adoption.com was doing business in the state of California, and California law prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Adoption.com wrote a letter to the National Center for Lesbian Rights stating, “Heterosexual couples are better suited to adopt than homosexuals.” In part the letter said, “All of the scientific research that we have seen overwhelmingly supports the premise that children have a much greater chance of thriving in their lives... if they are raised in a stable and traditional two-parent family" (Wright). This letter was part of the lawsuit. The company, based in Arizona, also argued that they were not bound by California law since they were in Arizona, which does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The suit was settled in 2007 when Adoption.com and its partner company, ParentsProfile.com agreed to not post any California couple’s information regardless of their sexual orientation. This means that they gave up a large part of their out-of-state business just so they could cling stubbornly to their biased agenda of discrimination against gays and lesbians. Many see Adoption.com’s decision as heroic and ethically upright. Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at Washington & Lee University School of Law, sees this settlement as reverse discrimination. “For entities like Adoption.com, the price of ?saving [one‘s] conscience takes the form of a lost opportunity to profit in a particular market. For individuals the cost of vindicating one‘s conscience frequently comes at the expense of one‘s livelihood” (Wilson 477). Wilson believes that those agencies and individuals who feel they ethically cannot condone or assist in the adoption of a child by a same-sex couple should be able to opt out without losing their ability to assist in adoptions by heterosexual couples. “Permitting conscientious refusals need not bar access to adoption. Instead, information-forcing rules could direct prospective parents to willing providers” (Wilson). Wilson feels that it would be fair if adoption agencies that do not approve of same-sex couples adopting did not have to leave the business because of their biased beliefs. She does, however, think that those agencies that opt out should be required to refer the same-sex couples to agencies that will not deny them services. While Wilson’s argument seems reasonable, and if it were to work as she has proposed it, it would be workable. The problem is that condoning one form of discrimination may as well be condoning them all. Especially when the bias is against a group of people who, even if they get all the civil rights of marriage and adoption for which they have been advocating for so long, will always be on the receiving end of harsh criticism from some people in society. Wilson’s suggestion that adoption agencies that choose not to comply with anti-discrimination laws should be allowed to do so on an ethical basis is akin to saying that the Ku Klux Klan should be able to continue their lynchings of black men because they chose to deny the civil rights of their victims on a moral basis. That, of course, is a ridiculous argument, just like Wilson’s that claims some agencies should be able to flaunt the law because of their religious beliefs. They should be able to stay in business and only help heterosexuals to adopt. Some already do their best to get around the anti-discrimination laws of their respective states. Even though attitudes toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people are changing, the laws governing same-sex couples adopting is much slower to change. In an article for the U.S. News and World Report, Amanda Ruggeri explains how different states have different laws about gay adoption. “If the contours of the debate are straightforward, adoption laws themselves often are not. While three states have laws that effectively ban gay couples from adopting, 12 others allow same-sex couples to adopt. That leaves 35 states where gay couples can't be sure how likely it is that an adoption petition might pass” (Ruggeri). John Ireland echoes this saying, “Perhaps predictably, the eight states that prohibit gay adoption are located in traditionally conservative and rural regions; and the nine states whose laws provide adoption equality for gay and lesbian couples are mostly coastal and metropolitan. But in the vast majority of the country (33 states), gay couples must delicately navigate and manipulate the system” (Ireland). Ireland himself is a gay adoptive parent and he suggests that in some states one domestic partner adopt the child. Later the other partner can seek “second parent” adoption, a remedy often used by heterosexual step parents. Mark Strasser explains how this tactic will not work in Oklahoma. “Some states do not recognize second-parent adoptions, benefits that might accrue from such recognition notwithstanding. For example, while Oklahoma allows single individuals to adopt and married individuals to adopt, state case law suggests that each member of a non-marital couple will not be permitted to adopt the same child” (Strasser 1816). If that is not blatant enough, Jacob Sullum cites Florida’s law that states outright its bias against same-sex couples. “Under Florida law, the court noted, ‘homosexual persons are allowed to serve as foster parents or guardians but are barred from being considered for adoptive parents. All other persons are eligible to be considered case-by-case to be adoptive parents, but not homosexual persons—even where, as here, the adoptive parent is a fit parent and the adoption is in the best interest of the children” (Sullum). Even when it would be best for the child to be adopted, Florida will not allow a gay couple to adopt. The only reason for Florida and Oklahoma’s law then is the blatant discrimination against same-sex couples adopting children. Analogous to the passing of civil rights for African-Americans in the 1960s, the federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation are flaunted by a few states. If gay couples live in Florida or Oklahoma, one would think the best advice is to move. However, that is not always possible, so Ireland offers other advice. Especially in rural and Bible belt states where the anti-discrimination laws are most frequently flaunted, Ireland recommends that gay couples not make their sexuality explicit for the adoption agency or for those closest to them who an adoption agency may interview as part of the investigation into their suitability as parents. That’s right. If a gay couple wants to be parents badly enough, they will deny who they are to accomplish that goal. Finally, and most importantly, Ireland advocates for competent legal counsel in all cases of adoption, but especially in same-sex adoptions. All of these recommendations sound perhaps like a way of circumventing the law, and they are, but that does not excuse the flaunting of individual civil rights caused by the laws that prohibit gays from adopting. Not only that, once a same-sex couple has adopted a child, should their lives take them to another state, it may or may not recognize the adoption. Many people may not see this as an issue, but one of the arguments used in favor of gay marriage is appropriate to also use in the defense of gay adoptions too. The argument goes something like: if a partner in an unmarried same-sex couple were sick or injured, the other partner has no legal rights to make decisions for him/her. The same is true for children. If a child is sick or injured, only his/her legal parent has the right to make decisions for the care of the child. If the partner who has adopted the child is also injured along with the child, what does the partner without marital or parental rights do? That is why it is so crucial that the laws be changed in every state to allow same-sex couples to adopt and to give both partners full parental rights over their children. Otherwise, they will continue to circumvent the law as they are forced to do now, as those who oppose gay adoptions do of their own free will also, and scenarios like the one described above could occur over and over. The fact that every time a gay couple is denied the right to adopt a child, that child remains in the foster care system is the real tragedy. Lesbian and gay couples have other avenues to pursue to have children and many famous people in same-sex relationships have taken advantage of them rather than adopting. Some famous people have also adopted. Rosie O’Donnell, for example, adopted four children with a lesbian partner, but those with money usually go one of the other routes perhaps just to avoid the hassle. Kids living in foster homes and orphanages do not care if their parents are famous or rich. All they care is that they actually have parents. The continued discrimination against gay couples, the clever circumventing of the law by religious groups with political agendas, and the stubborn refusal of some to comply with the laws harms the children languishing in foster homes instead of enjoying a life with two parents who are perfectly capable of providing a good home for them regardless of the parents sexual orientation. In an article in USA Today Sharon Jayson discusses a book about gay adoption titled Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their Children: Research on the Family Life Cycle, by Abbie Goldberg, an assistant professor of psychology at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Jayson quotes Goldberg as saying, “Gay households have more in common than not with their heterosexual counterparts who are also raising kids, the research shows. ‘The sexual orientation of a parent has really little to do with their parenting’” (Jayson). Another point Goldberg makes in her books is that “Children of gay couples don't differ from their peers raised by heterosexual couples in terms of their mental health, self-esteem, life satisfaction, social skills or number of friends” (Jayson). The article also cites the television show Modern Family which portrays a gay couple who adopted a Vietnamese girl. This aspect of the show with a title like “Modern Family” speaks for itself. So many lesbian and gay couples have children now that it has become a “cultural phenomenon” (Jayson). Those who persist in denying same-sex couples their rights to be parents need to think about how many children would still be languishing in foster care if not for these couples who have adopted them instead of selfishly thinking about their political agenda. The children should always come first in this discussion. Many individuals and organizations agree that children should be the first consideration in this issue, not somebody’s religious or moral belief. Organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, who argues that “It's a moral imperative to provide more of the nation's 500,000 foster care kids with stable homes. No credible evidence shows that having gay parents harms children, they say, and a ban only prevents judges from taking the child's best interests into account” (Ruggeri). Others who agree with the “children first” focus when it comes to same-sex adoption include “Florida's 3rd District Court of Appeal [that] had agreed with Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman that discriminating against adoptive parents based on their sexual orientation violates the state constitution's guarantee of equality before the law” (Sullum). And, last but not least is Roberta Munroe who explains how not only is denying the right to adopt to gays and lesbians discrimination based on sexual orientation, it is also discrimination based on race. “An underfunded foster care system is bulging at the seams with children in need of loving parents. More than 550,000 children are now in foster care in the United States, and many of them are African-American. Studies show that black boys are the least likely to be adopted . . . . When white gay men adopt black boys, it's the beginning of a solution to both problems. What's more, sexual stereotypes are challenged” (Munroe). Yet those who oppose same-sex adoption because they think the lifestyle is immoral would rather those half million kids remain in foster care or orphanages than allow them a loving forever family. The argument that placing children in need of homes in the homes of same-sex couples violates some morality is illogical. Once the child is successfully placed in just such a home, who from the anti-gay adoption faction is going to stick around to be offended? The answer is nobody. The child and his/her parents are going to have a normal life—as normal as life can be when a child is adopted. The real issues adopted children face are many: failure to attach because they have been stuck in the system so long and been farmed out to so many different foster homes they no longer allow themselves to love for fear that that love will be taken from them; transracially adopted children live always with the stigma of people staring, asking questions, and making rude remarks about their parentage; and most adoptive children must at some point grapple with the issue of having been rejected by their birth parents. The sexuality of their adoptive parents is probably the last thing adoption agencies should be concerned with when it comes to the child, but it is not. It is the first and only issue that some would address. That is sad because it only hurts the children. Works Cited CBS News. "Poll: U.S. remains divided on gay marriage." 14 September 2011. CBS News. 15 November 2011 . Flowerday, Todd. "Children First." Commonweal 20 November 2009: Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 12,, 2011. Ireland, John. "50 Ways to Adopt a Baby." Advocate 28 August 2007: Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 12, 2011. Jayson, Sharon. "Gay couples: A close look at this modern family, parenting." USA Today 5 November 2009: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-05- gayparents05_ST_N.htm. Accessed November 14, 2011. Munroe, Roberta. "Race Relations." Advocate 991 (2007): Academic search Premier. Accessed November 12, 2011. Ruggeri, Amanda. "A Quiet Fight Over Gay Adoption." U.S. News & World Report 3 November 2008: Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 12, 2011. Strasser, Mark. "Interstate Recognition of Adoptions: On Jurisdiction, Full Faith and Credit, and the Kinds of Challenges the Future May Bring." Brigham Young University Law Review (2008): 1809-1854. Sullum, Jacob. "More Happy Families." Reason 42.9 (2011): Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 12, 2011. Wilson, Robin Fretwell. "A Matter of Conviction: Moral Clashes over Same-Sex Adoption." BYU Journal of Public Law 22 (2007): 475-497. Wright, Ellen. "Adoption Website Sued for Discrimination Against Gay Couples." Lesbian News 29.7 (2004): Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 12, 2011. Read More