ADOPTIVE PARENTS: Mary Catelli replies to Gabriel Rosenberg
On consideration on
Mr. Rosenberg's views, I have finally realized something that is causing part of the confusion. Beneath all the statements about adoptive parents, Mr. Rosenberg is taking our current state of the adoption law -- heterosexual couples may adopt; in some states, the law allows homosexuals to adopt; in other states, judges have decreed that homosexual couples may adopt -- and treating it as the law of Medes and Persians that altereth not. Our marriage laws must therefore be cut to fit this adoption law.
In fact, adoption has been far more variable than marriage has, throughout history. Many, many, many cultures had no such practice. In ancient Rome, adoption was generally to adopt an adult, to perpetuate the family; a man who picked up an abandoned child could raise it as a slave instead of a child, and usually did. In Japan, adoption was (and I believe still is) not only chiefly the adoption of adults, but the adoption of one's son-in-law when one has no son. And there are states where the granting of same-sex parent adoptions is illegal. Does Mr. Rosenberg believe that homosexual marriages should occur only in states where the adoptions are legal? And that if a state passed a law against such adoptions, or impeached judges who granted them and voided the adoptions, homosexual marriages should not be permitted anymore?
By the same token, if someone persuaded a sympathetic judge to allow their roommate -- or even two roommates -- to adopt their child, should roommates therefore be permitted to marry?
posted by Eve at
4:28 PM | link
Post a Comment
<< Home