Gay Couple Should Be Able to Adopt in all the US States - Coursework Example

Gay couple should be able to adopt in all U.S. s Gay adoption refers to the process of adoption of children and providing them shelter and care by people belonging to the same sex. Several arguments and discussions have taken place over the years debating the issues surrounding the rights of gays and lesbians in relation to issues concerning legalizing their marriage and more recently - adoption and foster care. Several countries have already consented to the adoption of children by gay couples which includes Sweden, England, Wales, Spain, and the Netherlands and some states in the U.S. while other countries such as Norway, Germany, Iceland, and Denmark have legalized the adoption of step children belonging to a gay parent. Today at a time when the same sex couples have become increasingly vocal to express their opinions and fight for their rights the topic whether or not to legitimize the lifestyle of this genre of the society and push it further in the realms of marriage to encompass and redefine the meaning of “family” in a liberated and free country has assumed greater significance. In the absence of proper legal framework that deprives a certain section of the society their basic rights merely on account of their sexual preference, such individuals or groups might depend on alternative methods such as depending on surrogacy as an alternative means of having their own child (Stacey et al, 2001, Pp. 166). Although there does not exist any single federal legislation that legally prevents gay couples from adoption across the United States, however, the laws differ from state to state for instance both Florida and Mississippi expressly prevent same sex couples from adopting and parenting children. There are innumerable incidences of gays and same sex groups have launched a nation wide legal battle across courtrooms to avail the right to adopt a child and create and lead a peaceful family life like several others. (Source: National Survey of Family Growth) The above map shows the estimated population (state wise) of adopted children under the age of eighteen and who are living with lesbian or gay parents. In spite of such nation wide movements and gay right activists fighting for their “rights” the movement has faced strong opposition from several sections of the society including religious institutions which foresee such a right as against religion and anti social. According to the theories put forward by such bodies, implementation of rights allowing gay marriage and legalizing adoption of children by people of the same sex would eventually disrupt the fabric of the society and cause imbalance by disturbing the harmony of nature. While yet others claim that such a movement should not be used as a tool to prove the establishment of justice and fair and equal rights. The future of the child should be given due importance and children should not be made scapegoats to prove that the state is just and fair in its treatment of all sections of the society. The adoption if at all allowed should always be in the best interest of the child and nothing else should be given precedence. Although there might be several types of data and statistical figures available to prove that might be in the favor of or against such an adoption but it should not be used as a tool to promote gay rights. In the U.S almost all the states allow adoption of children by single individuals irrespective of their sexual orientation barring a few states that actively oppose and seek to prohibit adoption of children by gay couples. Of the states which promote adoption of children by gays and same sex partners include California, Illinois, Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont as well as Columbia while the states of Florida, Miami, Massachusetts, Nebraska and Utah actively prohibit adoption by couples of the same sex. Contrary to popular beliefs that, children brought up by gay parents show negative traits in terms of education or sexual preference studies and researches confirm that no major developmental, behavioral, social or psychological problems have been observed in children brought up by gay parents which were drastically different as opposed to those brought up by heterosexual parents (Green et al, 1986, Pp167 – 184). There might even be certain positive consequences of rearing up children in gay households such as it might help in developing a sense of open mindedness amongst the children, and the ability to openly acknowledge and accept the subtle differences in others and live in harmony. Several reputable institutions in the country such as The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychological Association as well as The Child Welfare League of America, have clearly acknowledged and confirmed that there exist absolutely no difference whatsoever in the bringing up of children by gays as well as heterosexual parents and those children brought up by same sex parents often turn out to be as happy and well groomed as those brought up by heterosexual parents (HRC, 2004). There are studies that confirm that same sex partners are more likely to adopt “hard to place” children i.e., children with physical or mental disabilities as compared to those by heterosexual partners (Bennett & Gates, 2004). Currently several states in the United States in a bid to actively seek the prohibition of adoption of children by gay couples for instance the Child Welfare system reform review committee set up by the Oklahoma legislature to retrospect various policies governing child welfare in the state have set up policies that expressly prohibits gay couples from applying for adoption of children. If such laws, that restrict adoption of children on the basis of sexual preference of the adoptive parents, are implemented across the nation it is highly likely that the children already placed in foster care of gay parents would be removed from their care to be reinstated with heterosexual couples with yet others being replaced in foster care. Alienating gay couples from the list of prospective adoptive families would render a sizable portion of children with no homes at all and might grow out of age to be regarded fit enough to continue their stay in foster homes. Moreover, the same sex parent might possess certain characteristic trait that is best suited for a particular child and might contribute in providing a healthy environment for him / her. For instance, the adoption of a mentally or physically challenged child by a gay couple who also happens to be a physician might hamper the chance of the child to be placed under able guidance and care merely on account of the sexual preference of the prospective parent and largely ignoring the immense potential that such a parent might have to improve and protect the child with such disabilities. Also considering the strict laws against the legal adoption of children by gay couples would endanger the life of a surviving child who might have to stay with a complete stranger rather than a gay relative owing to stringent laws on that behalf. This might affect the child’s rearing by able guardians and would amount to outright denial of rights of a child to be placed under the care of a relative / close family associates. It is highly likely that a certain percentage of children brought up in foster care might turn out to be gays and might not be adopted by heterosexual couples. In such a case bringing up such children by gays would ensure adequate care and counseling as to the various trappings of the society and other significant issues surrounding their sexual preferences. But laws prohibiting adoption of children by gays would deny the right of freedom of expression to the children with similar sexual preferences and hence alienate them further from the society. Moreover the discovery of the sexual preference of their adopted child by the heterosexual couples might lead to further chaos and resentment which might further complicate the situation leading to decisions which might be entirely against the well being of the adopted child. In fact it could be safely interpreted that such discovery might have harmful effect / impact on the child in question which might threaten to disrupt the harmonious family life of the adoptive parents. Various researchers believe that children suffer largely on account of separation of their parents and their subsequent displacement from the sheltered family life to a one restricted to either of the parent post separation. Their academic progress might be hindered with the children losing interest in studies and other activities and might become withdrawn from the world around him / her leading to increased hostility. Such displacement owing to dissatisfaction of family life might cause behavioral problems in them leading to increased hospital visits and mental health care. They might have great difficulty in social behavior and either grows up to become extremely hostile, introverted or aggressive. Preventing adoption of children by gays might have severe financial repercussions. Several state run foster care homes thrive on government spending. Implementing of laws prohibiting gays from adoption would substantially increase government cost of providing for the children which would otherwise have been led to substantial savings to the government, had they allowed such an adoption. The potential impact of a ban on adoption of children by such parents must also be taken into consideration. The children might be at ease and comfortable with the idea of living under the care and guardianship of their gay relatives which in the absence of their biological parents might come as a welcome relief. However the implementation of laws prohibiting gays from such an act would deprive the children of the privilege to live with their gay relatives, someone who is close to them and with whom they are comfortable and might be forced to relinquish their desires and instead have to live with adoptive parents of heterosexual preference. Thus on the basis of these arguments presented in the essay it could be safely judged that the granting of adoption rights to the couples with same sex preference might not have the presumed negative impacts and would actually prove to be fruitful for both the government as well as the children. References Stacey, Judith, Biblarz, Timothy, (2001). Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter? American Sociological Review, Vol.66, Pp.166 Green, R., Mandel, J. B., Hotvedt, M.E., Gray, J., Smith, L., (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol.15, Pp. 167 – 184. Human Rights Campaign, (2004). Professional Opinion. Family, Retrieved: November 25, 2008, from: Bennett, L., Gates, G. J., (2004). The Cost of Marriage Equality to Children and their Same Sex Partners: A Human Rights Campaign Foundation report, Washington. Read More