Adoption Rights in Same-Sex Marriages in Florida - Case Study Example

Adoption rights within same-sex marriages Background Adoption rights for same sex marriages have been a popular issue of debate with divided opinions found within the same geographical territory. Utah and 48 other states prohibit adoption even in case of prohabitation of unmarried couples. And this automatically applies to the gay couples. In North Dakota in the year 2003 a law was passed regarding gay adoption and this allowed the agencies to allow prospective parents to adopt as objected on religious grounds. (Cahill, 53) In New Hampshire there was a legislation, which considered the gays and lesbians ‘unfit’ to adopt and therefore prohibited any form of adoption undertaken by the homosexuals of New Hampshire. For the two states, Utah and Mississippi, ban is placed on same-sex couples’ adoption but in case of Florida, adoptions by gay men and lesbians are explicitly banned along with same sex couples. (Merin, 180) Generally the adoptive agencies require the adopting couples to be heterosexuals and married. However at present several couples that do not match the expectations are still allowed adopting children. A survey was taken in Canada in the year 2000 which examined the assessments of the community with regard to the acceptability of the married couples and majority voted in favor of heterosexual married couples. However two thirds of the men and women who participated favored adoption by single women and men. Among them around 58 percent men did not support the adoption by gay couples while fifty three percent of the women supported the adoption by lesbian couples. The participants who were younger and had higher education were also more inclined towards this kind of adoption. Another survey was conducted in USA by the ABC channel over the telephone and this led to the conclusion that women and young people with higher education were in favor of adoption by gay and lesbian couples. Like the case of Canada, USA was also divided in terms of public opinion 47 percent supported gay adoption compared to the 28 percent support during the poll of 1994 conducted by CNN. (Wegar, 49) The paper takes up the case in favor of adoption rights in same-sex marriages picking on the ban imposed in Florida on gay adoption rights using the Rogerian Approach (“What is Rogerian Argument?”). The foundation of such a ban is feeble and requires reconsideration. Opposition view and refutations Procreation argument: The push against adoption by lesbians and gay men comes after successful campaigns in 11 states in 2004 to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. At least six more states — Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wisconsin — may put marriage on the ballot in November. According to Rev. Russell Johnson (chairperson of the Ohio Restoration Project which is a conservative group of Christians), “These people cannot reproduce. ... Experimenting on children through gay adoption is a problem.” (Stone) Though, on this ground it is difficult to argue in favor of same sex adoption rights, but if one comes to the normal couples, infertility and other issues often takes away the ability to reproduce and if they can be permitted the right to adoption on the grounds of being straight, then it would be a discrimination to ban the homosexual couples from adopting children. Psychological issue in case of gay parenthood: Another major argument against the homosexual couples’ adoption rights is that same sex couples are mentally sick and the children might not be secure with them (Belge). In the case of Florida ban on adoption rights by same sex couples, the court argues that children’s betterment is optimized when they live among straight married couples and children of same sex couples might undergo scorn and aggravation from external sources. (Delaney) However picking up the issue from here, one may use the psychoanalysts views and that of the American Association of Pediatrics which states, “In light of data showing that children of gay and lesbian parents function just as well emotionally, cognitively, and socially as children of heterosexual parents…courts should stop using sexual orientation as grounds to deny members of same-sex couples the right to adopt their partner’s children”. (Arehart-Treichel) It has also been proven that homosexuality is not a problem of psychology. American Psychological Association declared in 2004, “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.” (Delaney) Discrimination and Equal Rights issue: The State of Florida defended its ban on adoption on the basis of ideological grounds, trying to convince that the state was expressing its disapproval and discontent for homosexual practice and behavior. In order to defend its position in the current lawsuit, in July 2001, Florida’s claim was that the state "is constitutionally permitted to legislate in furtherance of public morality both as to the moral environments of children and as to restrictions on who may be recognized as a legal family.” (Berg, 2001) The district court did not approve of this argument given on moral grounds, saying that such a categorization of expressing society’s resentment towards a group would violate and burden the law under the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th amendment of the constitution. The district judge went on to stand for withdrawal of the ban on gay and lesbian adoption. The Court also announced that such a law requires a valid justification and ‘strict scrutiny’. (The Human Rights Campaign 2009) According to the American Psychological Association, “What a child needs most of all are committed, nurturing, and competent parents, and gay parents are as capable of being as committed, nurturing, and competent as are heterosexual parents” (Arehart-Treichel). This is a discrimination and the Association and the Equal Rights Amendment do not support such forms of discriminaiton. The issue of children’s abuse under homosexual parenting: The argument that it might be dangerous, for the adopted children to have homosexual parents owing to the proneness to abuse and other related problems, might not always be true. A child molester earns the designation of being dangerous but his own action. Such individuals convicted of child abuse and sexual assaults undoubtedly brings out a threat to the upbringing of children and their care On such important grounds, sexual predators and child exploitation convicts are evaluated and judged for their eligibility of parents. Their evaluations are based not only on factual grounds but also moral grounds that follows the facts. However if the gays and lesbians are also inclined to abuse of children, it would not be justified as in that case, even heterosexual married couples should be prone to similar implied accusations. Such a ground is therefore invalid and does not stand much strongly. Some professionals suggest that choosing such grounds for justification cannot be morally right for the State. Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox listed some findings, based on evidence provided by children’s welfare and psychology professionals. Children of gay parents may have equally healthy childhood and upbringing as those of heterosexual parents and well adjusted as well. This proves that the idea of unhealthy and improper upbringing is based on mere chance that is equally applicable to all normal couples. Being parented by lesbian or gay does not necessarily increase a childs psychological risk, adversely affect social behavior or cause academic problems, confusion about identity of gender and difficulties in association with child abuse. There is no proven fact regarding heterosexual parents guiding a child better in their adolescence than any homosexual. Since 1977, the attitude of Florida’s legislature was not in unison on this issue. Several judges involved in the trial gave their personal opinion against the law. One of them called upon the constitution’s equal protection law, which is violated by the current law in question. Judge Rosemary Barkett criticized the state on the ground that it did not bar any of the child abusers and molesters from the right to adoption. According to Stanley F. Birch, “I consider the policy decision of the Florida legislature to be misguided and trust that over time attitudes will change and it will see the best interests of these children in a different light” (Philips, 2004). Conclusion From the above discussion one may say that all the arguments in favor of preventing adoption rights have their refutation grounds as well. Yet although some groups like the Conservative sometimes accept gay marriages, adoption is not accepted so easily. Even Republicans have divided opinions. The best way to deal with this issue is by arranging polls at different places and among various communities. For instance, a poll arranged by Democratic advisor Peter Hart on behalf of the Human rights Campaign concludes that this is not an issue, which would be accepted well by the public and in fact, “58% of Missouri voters polled in November and 62% of Ohio voters this month said they would vote against it”. According to Thomas Mann, a political expert from Brookings Institution, “Conservatives may well overreach if they try to ban gays from adopting children” (Stone). Arranging polling might help in spreading awareness and help the policy makers take the most popular and appropriate step, but in the socio political set up such issues are always picked up to serve the interests of the political diplomats and other social groups who want to gain publicity. Yet one might infer that a ban on such rights as adoption would generate discontent and lead to waning of the faith in democracy. One possible solution might therefore be to grant the right to adoption but not without a proper research on the backgrounds of the same sex couples. However, if one among the couple really holds wrong intention behind adoption, then bribery and over-the-counter activities might result. Thus this is a sensitive issue, which should be dealt with the help of proper policymaking and legal assurance accompanied by social acceptance. Works Cited 1. Berg, Amy, Suit in Florida Challenges Anti-Gay Adoption Ban, Womens e-News August 16 2001, available at: http://womensenews.org/story/the-nation/010816/suit-florida-challenges-anti-gay-adoption-ban (accessed on April 23, 2010) 2. Belge, Kathy, Both Sides of the Issue, 2010, available at: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/families/a/adoption_2.htm (accessed on April 23, 2010) 3. The Human Rights Campaign, “Working For Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender Equal Rights”, 2009, available at: http://www.hrc.org/issues/2376.htm (accessed on April 2, 2009) 4. Phillips, Chelsea, “Breakout: Florida and the Future of Gay Adoption”, Serendip, 2004, available at: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/knowbody/f04/web3/cphillips.html (accessed on April 2, 2009) 5. Wegar, Katarina. Adoptive families in a diverse society, London: Rutgers University Press, 2006 6. Merin, Yuval, Equality for same-sex couples, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002 7. Cahill, Sean Robert. Same-sex marriage in the United States, Lahnam: Lexington Books, 2004 8. Stone, Andrea, Both sides on gay adoption cite concern for children, USA Today, February 20, 2006, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-02-20-gay-adoption-foster_x.htm (accessed on April 23, 2010) 9. Delaney, Lorah. Gay Adoption and Parenting, January 21, 2010, available at: http://same-sex-parents-rights.suite101.com/article.cfm/gay_adoption_and_parenting (accessed on April 23, 2010) 10. Arehart-Treichel, Joan, Psychoanalysts Back Option Of Same-Sex Adoption, Psychiatric News, 37 (14). July 19, 2002, p.12, available at: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/37/14/12.1.full (accessed on April 23, 2010) 11. “What is Rogerian Argument?”, 2010, available at: http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/com5e1.cfm (accessed on April 23 2010) Read More