ADOPTION LAWS: Lucia Liljegren replies to Mary Catelli

Mary Catelli asks: Why should adoption law be treated with such reverence and marriage law with such contempt?

First, I would not say adoptions have been treated with reverence, and marriage laws with contempt. As you yourself point out, adoption laws, like marriage laws have evolved with the times.

I believe the reason we insist on flexible adoption laws is that we seek to find the best possible solution for the specific child to be adopted. Suppose for example we have the following specific case: a lesbian mother gives birth to a child; she wishes her female partner to adopt. The genetic father is unknown.

The female partner requests an adoption; the genetic mother supports her in this request. What are the alternatives to permitting the woman's female partner to adopt? Forbid the adoption and leave the child with one parent? How does this benefit the specific child under consideration? Our adoption laws change to permit judges to make decisions in the interests of the child.

The argument that SSM might harm OSM is more remote. Let us say the judge permitted the adoption. Now, the issue becomes: should we permit the two women to marry? If they did, this could result in some tangible advantages to their child. It is somewhat difficult to demonstrate that it damages any existing OSM.
posted by Eve at 7:05 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home