MORE ON ADOPTION: Gabriel Rosenberg replies to Mary Catelli

Mary Catelli has a response and a follow-up to my ongoing discussion concerning marriage and parenting for same-sex couples. I can briefly, and hopefully fairly, summarize her points and questions as follows:

1. Do I believe that homosexual marriages should occur only in states where same-sex adoptions are legal? Likewise if they became illegal in a state, does that destroy the case for marriage?
2. If roommates can adopt should they be permitted to marry?
3. Adoption has been more variable through history then marriage. Why sholdn't adoption change to conform to our current marriage laws, as opposed to vice-versa? Why should adoption law be treated with such reverence and marriage law with such contempt?
4. My only objection to three or more people jointly raising a child and therefore marrying is that the law doesn't permit, but some judge could change the law.
5. Could (should?) a judge decide not to grant a same-sex couple joint adoption because of the concern for greater conflict and confusion?

My responses...

2. Even if they can't adopt, I think roommates should be permitted to marry. They already are permitted if the rooommates are opposite-sex and I don't believe we should forbid it solely because of the gender of the roommates. Whether roommates should marry depends on the circumstance. One should only enter marriage with the intention and the expectation that it will be permanent. So if roommates decide to marry they need to understand that they can't be dating other people, or expect to end the marriage when it no longer suits them. That being said I don't think they should jointly adopt unless they undertake this permanent commitment with all it entails.

3. While I agree that adoption has changed significantly through time and place, I believe marriage has as well (See E.J. Graff's wonderful book, What is Marriage For?) Personally, I don't see allowing same-sex marriage as a radical change to marriage law. I believe the radical change has already occurred in making marriage egalitarian. That is, the changes that have made the rights and responsibilities of a spouse independent of the gender of the spouse are, I believe, unprecedented. ... Once that change has been made the elimination of gender-based entry requirements follows naturally. ...

That being said, one who wishes to end adoptions by same-sex couples, and who believes such a goal could be achieved, probably would want to oppose same-sex marriage. I do concede that marriage will probably make it even less likely that we will change the adoption laws in this manner. I believe that such a reversion in our laws so that we no longer allow same-sex couples to adopt would be a terrible idea. I think it would be disastrous for children, even worse than denying them the protections of marriage. It would deny them the protection of a legal parent. ... In short I believe changing marriage will provide greater protection to children, while reverting the adoption laws would provide less protection to children.

more
posted by Eve at 5:10 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home