|
 |
 |
 Saturday, January 15, 2005
MARRIAGE PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION: Michael Triplett
Is there a legal and moral obligation to prefer married parents over all others? It's an interesting question, but it doesn't really explain the "why." Why would there be a moral obligation? Is it because there is evidence that married couples are better parents? Is it because there is evidence that children will be harmed if not raised by married parents? The much-heralded research alleging that children do better when raised by BIOLOGICAL married mothers and fathers is of little use in making this determination. Since there is no biological link, there is no reason to believe that social science research would support the idea that married mother and fathers who adopt provide better outcomes for kids then kids raised in other "non-gold standard" situations. If there is such research, it would surely be interesting to see. Perhaps the "moral obligation" comes from the idea that we should be promoting these kinds of parenting relationships, even if there is no evidence they are superior from other configurations. That is probably a persuasive argument, until you realize the consequences of such a preference. It is interesting that you point to Utah as a state with a married parent preference, since it is a state that is probably able to avoid one of the biggest consequences of this policy: the disparate impact it would have on African Americans. A "married couple" preference could be disastrous when it comes to placing African American children into African American homes. There are already significant barriers to placing children into African American homes, many of them economic. When you add the additional barrier of preferring married couples--which are less common among African Americans--you suddenly have even greater problems with placing African American children--often the largest group of adoptable children--into homes of the same race. My sense is you won't find that problematic, but there are many who would argue it is a "legal and moral obligation" not to create barriers for children to be placed in homes of the same race.
MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION (AND LIONS): Maggie replies to Ms Wells 1980
And because we are not animals, who act by instinct, we need social institutions, like marriage--which is the only known context in which human fathers normally and usually develop strong relationships with their children. (The majority of children whose fathers don't get and stay married do not keep warm and close relationships with them. In some studies, the majority haven't even seen their dad once in the past year. More than 60 percent of children of divorce in one white middle-class sample reported as adults that they were not close to their fathers.) This makes sense. What is marriage ordinarily a promise to do? It means 1. man will live with his children and their mother. 2. the man's children and their mother will be his principle financial and emotional responsibility and 3. he will not sleep with other women, and so will not have children across multiple households. For most men, these turn out to be pretty important context for responsible fathering. Some dads outside of marriage do better than others (and some do a pretty good job) and all dads are responsible for their kids. (You are inventing disagreement on this point.) But only married dads do these three things, and these three things end up being a pretty important part of fathering in the real world, as opposed to the hypothetical world, or the animal world. Lions are a particularly bad example, because as far as I can tell, all they do is sleep, have sex, and fight with other male lions.
MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION (AND LIONS): Ms Wells 1980 replies to Maggie
Due to your lack of the nature and social organizaion of lion prides, you missed my point. A "father" is a positive male role model. He does not have to be "married", just determined to spend quality time, economically support, and physically protect our children! (that means ALL the little people) All men are responsible for ALL children regardless of paternity. Nor does any man/woman "own" another by virtue of vow or contract. How many wars have we fought, quite literally, over a piece of ass? Why? Because "paternity" was at question! He who inherits the wealth, inherits power and control etc. Even though you advocate a particular form of marriage, marriage in and of itself is a "man made" institution wrought with failings--the idea is perfect, just not the implementation and interpretation of it. Nor is it biologically possible, given birth and death rates of men and women, for every man and woman to be married. Who marries who is not an issue when compared against who cares, stands up for, and fights for our children. Bottom line, we should eliminate marriage altogether. It is merely a tax break (our governent only recognizes one form of marriage--check the world out). We should establish a social and economic structure that cares for nothing else than educating positive thinking human adults.
MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION: Maggie replies to Ms Wells 1980
Alas, if we were lions, you'd be right. Certainly we must help all children. We don't do so when we pretend that fathers don't matter. Fatherless kids know this best of all.
MARRIAGE AND ADOPTION LAW: "Ms Wells 1980"
[That's the pseudonym of a married mother who works full-time.] I am a parent and I recognize the need for a "two-parent" household. I am not for gay couples adopting because they willfully "chose" a life style that cannot naturally produce children under any circumstances. That is their choice though I feel the ability to successfully raise and nurture children among them is the same as that of heterosexuals. Unfortunately, the economic forces at work do not maintain a "living wage" based on a single income thereby resulting in many moms working outside the home. That is reality. And any "type" of abusive parent should be absent from a child's life period. Better to be a single parent than suffer that situation. Equally so, no woman or man should be forced to maintain a false relationship over time "for the sake of the children". That leads "in death do we part" situations. And the tension between them does filter down to the children. Also add to the fire nature and mankind are "not in balance" and there does not exist a "father" for every child in the monogamous setting. If that were true, given the nature of man, there would be a third of the population of women without husbands and childless. By the time women and men are of marriagable age, the ration is 4:1. Reality is it is time for a new social agenda for the rearing of human beings. It is truely one world and we need to be addressing the concerns of humanity versus individual pre-conceived norms. Men do not "own" children because they fathered them. This drive for "paternity" has enslaved women emothionaly (sex for women is tied to our emotions-paternity identification) and resulted in the neglect of children considered "not theirs" (sex for men is tied to their egos-how many children they father). These outdated social norms must be addressed and corrected if society is to truly step into a new century. It does not matter who a child's father is (study the lions), all that matters is that as a collective group we sucessfully raise ALL the children to be positive human lights of humanity.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Dale A. Carpenter
[Unconnected to very long exchange below. --Eve] I'd support a preference for married couples. Of course that would still leave many children who need to be adopted; and Florida actually removed its preference for married couples a few years ago. The cruelty, to children and to gays, of a categorical ban on gay adoptive parents but not child molesters or dead-beat parents or any other category, should not be lost on anyone.
FAMILY POLICY AND WOMEN'S PREFERENCES: Neil Gilbert
...In contrast to the United States, Western European countries are well known for having a powerful arsenal of day care and other family-friendly benefits. For example, over 70 percent of the children from age three years to school age in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are in publicly financed child care. Given the general direction of U.S. policy, it may be instructive to examine how motherhood and family life have fared in light of the changing levels of family-friendly benefits available in the industrialized countries of the European Union. The question is not simply are they "family friendly," but for what kinds of families and female life styles are they friendly? Overall, marriage and fertility rates have declined and female labor-force participation rates have increased throughout most of the European Union over the last few decades. ... Overall, these findings lend themselves to at least three broad interpretations. Believers in the salutary effects of family-friendly policies would argue that although such policies did not appear to strengthen the formation of family life (by increasing the presence of children and marriage), in the absence of these benefits the declines would have been even sharper--that is, these benefits acted as a brake to slow things up. As evidence, they might point to the fact that in three of the countries--Denmark, Sweden, and Finland--that had significant positive correlations between fertility rates and public expenditure on family benefits, the rates of expenditure were proportionately more than twice as high as that of most of the other countries. This suggests that the decline can be diminished if significant resources are invested in family services. Invoking the mantra "correlation is not causality," skeptics find little reason to assume that these policies are either friendly or unfriendly to families, and read the results as confirming that family-friendly policies make no palpable difference. They point out that if indeed these benefits served as a brake on declining rates of fertility and marriage, then one would expect to find the lowest marriage and fertility rates in countries that lagged behind in the family-friendly benefits, of which the United States is a prime example--except that the American rates are higher than those of the European Union. Skeptics would no doubt refer to the history of children's allowances in France which were initiated under the Family Code of 1939 with the explicit goal of increasing the birthrate. Although the French birthrate increased considerably in the decades after World War II, during the same period the United States--with no children's allowance--also experienced a dramatic rise in the birthrate, while the birthrate in Sweden declined despite its allowance system. The skeptic argues that decisions concerning marriage and family size address fundamental conditions of human existence, which do not yield readily to social policy. Finally, disbelievers conclude that so-called family-friendly policies are not really family friendly at all. ... The second reality is that the main threads of family-friendly policies are tied to and reinforce female labor-force participation--and are more aptly labeled "market friendly." These policies are largely, though not entirely, associated with publicly provided care for children and supports for periods of parental leave. To qualify for parental-leave benefits it is necessary to have a job before having children. The incentive for early attachment to the labor force is bolstered by publicly subsidized day care. Child-care services both compensate for the absence of parental child care in families with working mothers and generate an economic spur for mothers to shift their labor from the home to the market. In Sweden, for example, free day-care services are state-subsidized by as much as $11,900 per child. They are free at the point of consumption, but paid for dearly by direct and indirect taxes—in 1990, Swedish taxes absorbed the highest proportion of the gross domestic product of any OECD country. Paying in advance for the "free" day-care service tends to squeeze mothers into the labor force, since the crushing tax rates make it difficult for the average family to get by on the salary of one earner. State-sponsored welfare activities accounted for about three-quarters of the net job creation in Sweden between 1970 and 1990, with almost all of these public-service positions being filled by women. Thus much of the voluntary labor invested in care for children, disabled kin, and elderly relatives was redirected to providing social care to strangers for pay. ... The reality is that family policies can be friendlier to some life styles than to others. Recognizing this, we should explore alternatives to the conventional perspective on family policies designed to harmonize work and family life. The conventional approach is implicitly oriented toward helping mothers work while raising children. It is informed by male work patterns, which basically involve a seamless transition from school to the paid labor force along with a drive to rise as high as possible in a given line of work. This "male model" of an early start and a continuous work history imposes a temporal frame on policies to harmonize work and family life, and it stresses the idea of "balancing" the concurrent performance of labor-force participation and child-rearing activities. Child-care services, and even periods of parental leave, facilitate an ongoing and relatively stable work history--which is preferred by many, though clearly not all, women. more
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee Walzer
[Lee Walzer is an attorney and writer in Washington, DC. He is the author of "Between Sodom and Eden: A Gay Journey Through Today's Changing Israel" (Columbia University Press 2000), "Gay Rights on Trial: A Reference Handbook" (ABC-CLIO 2002), and the forthcoming "Marriage on Trial: A Reference Handbook" (ABC-CLIO 2005). Eve notes: Because this is a fairly long exchange, which would be hard to read in the usual blogger format, I'm posting it all at once and you read it from top to bottom. This is the first post in the exchange. The last one is by Maggie. Any later posts in this exchange will be posted as they arrive. Sorry for any confusion--I think this is the least confusing way to handle it. --Eve] Maggie Gallagher's column concerning the Supreme Court's decision not to hear a challenge to Florida's absolute ban against gays adopting reveals a complete misunderstanding of how people adopt and how the system works. She cites the case of a North Carolina family where social workers apparently decided to place twins with a gay male couple rather than a husband-wife couple who had previously adopted a child previously placed by the birthmother of the twins with them. She decries this "political correctness" and calls for laws that give preferences to married couples in adoption (although she's too polite to call for outright bans on gays or singles, men as well as women). But it is her conservative political correctness that will deprive many children of a family. The case she cited apparently involved the public adoption system (seeing that it was DSS personnel who made the placement decision); but it is children in the public system who often are much harder to place because of the issues that many of those children have, whether from abuse, bad and/or frequent foster placements, handicaps and, yes, race. Who is stepping up to the plate and adopting many of these kids, who otherwise would never have a family? Gay men and lesbians, as well as singles and others perceived as somehow less ideal as parents by conservatives. It is not as if there are heterosexual married parents being deprived of adopted children because those uppity gays and lesbians (and singles and others) are out to make a political statement by adopting. There are far more children in need of a permanent home than there are parents of whatever relationship constellation or sexuality. Many, perhaps most, adoptions in this country are either privately arranged through adoption agencies or attorneys, or are from other countries, many of which allow singles to adopt. Happily, Maggie Gallagher's drive to ensure that more children grow up without parents will not reach most adopted children, even if she succeeds in inflicting incalculable harm on the most vulnerable of the children in need of an adoptive family -- those in the public system.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Maggie Gallagher
I'm not only too polite, but I don't believe in bans on adoptions by single parents, or by gay parents, for some of the reasons you suggest and for some of my own. (If I died, I want my kids to go to my sister regardless of her orientation, rather than some stranger, for example.) The question I'm raising is different (and Lee, you just skirted it): If (as in North Carolina) married moms and dads are available and willing to adopt, should they be given preference? I think so. Do you?
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee Walzer
I think it's a tough question, Maggie. In general, I think that children benefit from having two parents. There are some situations where a child would definitely benefit from having a mom AND a dad. But I know so many kids who have been adopted by single parents, and by same-sex couples, who do just fine with one parent (or two parents of the same sex). This is why social worker discretion is important, particularly when it comes to the public system where so many children have "issues" because of past abuse or because they've been placed in multiple foster homes. What wasn't clear from your article was why the social workers placed the twins with the gay couple in the first place, even though the married parents, who'd adopted a previous child from this birthmother, wanted to adopt the twins. My own guess: they may not have been "paper-ready." There is a lot of paperwork to do in order to adopt and the paperwork does not carry over from one adoption to the next, in general (unless you adopt another child within the one year period that a homestudy is valid for, for example). In this case, the social workers had a loving home for the twins and acted -- although I agree that it would have been wonderful for the siblings to all be in one home (regardless of the sexual orientation or relationship status of the parent/s). I greatly enjoy marriagedebate.com even though, as you can tell, I do not agree with a lot of your views. I am glad that you do not favor bans on singles or gays adopting though! I think one thing that you ignore in these discussions is how much our concepts of parenting and parenthood are indeed social constructs. The way we raise children, and relate to them, today is much different from a century or two ago, let alone across cultures. There are plenty of mothers out there who do not ascribe to "traditional" concepts of motherhood, and the same goes for fathers and fatherhood -- this is a good thing actually. It's only a few decades back that fathers had very little to do with raising children whereas today, it is socially expected for fathers to be involved. To sum up, it sounds nice in theory to say that kids need some theoretical construct of what you expect fathers and mothers individually to provide a child, but I don't believe that day to day life, even for married heterosexual couples, conforms to your vision of what kids have, or receive. Nor can it. There is so much variation in how parents parent. In your view, do fathers who address their teenage sons as "honey" or "sweetheart" (and I know plenty of heterosexual fathers who do so) provide a proper model of what masculinity is or what it means to be a man (whatever that means!)? You may well think so, but I read some of the stuff that your allies on these issues among the religious right publish and they probably would say that such fathers are insufficiently "manly" and put their kids "at risk" for homosexuality. I think that if children have love and stability in their lives, they're going to do just fine.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee Walzer
One other point. I might be more inclined to agree with you that children should be BORN into a married relationship. I say this in part because many of those who become pregnant out of wedlock are not ready emotionally etc to raise a child on their own. So, it's axiomatic that such children, on the whole, would be better off in a married relationship. Adoption is different though. You are dealing with a population of kids who have no parents and who will invariably benefit from having a permanent home, whether it's with a same-sex couple, a heterosexual married couple, or a single parent. And there are far more kids in need of homes, whether in our own public adoption system or internationally, than there are available parents. You need to find good parents period. And, thinking further about things, you need not worry as much as you are about the system not taking married couples into account enough. While the NC case you cite is interesting, it is most definitely not the norm. I know anecdotally that married couples invariably are preferred -- whether by birthmoms seeking a private placement for their child, in the public system, or by foreign governments. I'll close with a truly radical additional thought: That gay parents may make better adoptive parents as a group than heterosexual married couples. There is still a lot of prejudice against adoption in this country and heterosexual married couples mostly come to adoption by default -- as a second-best choice necessitated by infertility, which often creates years of grief for such couples. Same-sex couples (especially male couples) do not come to adoption as a second-best option -- they embrace the idea as a way of becoming parents. And although it's changing, for years the only kids that gay couples could adopt from the public system were the most damaged/least wanted -- HIV-positive, differently abled, lots of emotional/learning issues, or even simply non-caucasian kids. In many cases, were it not for gay parents, these kids would never have a forever family.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Maggie Gallagher
The gay couple who adopted (actually North Carolina doesn't allow unmarried couples to adopt, so technically the twins were placed with a single father who had a live-in partner) were told the married couple refused the adoption when they discovered the children had special medical needs. Susan vigorously contests this, noting she is a nurse and that her mother (also a nurse) had agreed to take time off to help with the kids. She says the social workers mislead her to get them to withdraw their petition in two ways: a. by claiming she and her husband lived in the wrong county and it was impossible for them to place children out of county and b. by claiming that the children had been placed with a great married couple in which the "wife" was a doctor. I was unable to contact the social workers (who may not even work for the county now) so I don't know their side of the story. Placement decisions are essentially unreviewable by outsiders (the Esbenshades, when they found the truth, were told they had no standing to contest the placement, in spite of the state law requirng siblings to be placed together when possible, which is probably true). The social workers aren't talking. So we don't know their motivation. I agree with you, Lee: Blanket legal bans are unworkable and unwise--not in the interests of children. I also think the social work profession as a whole is more interested in promoting family diversity as a social justice ideal that getting married moms and dads for kids in their care. (Anyone care to dispute that? The evidence is pretty powerful.)
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Maggie Gallagher
Why would pregnancy be evidence that single parents aren't emotionally ready to take on a child? Almost half of all unwed pregnancies are now planned. Why are you so prejudiced against pregnant women?
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee Walzer
I'll stand corrected on this -- what I was trying to say (and failed!) referred more to kids born to impoverished single mothers. Believe me, I know plenty of single women who have had children out of wedlock by choice and who are great parents!!
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee Walzer
You really should have included some of these details in the column that you wrote -- it gives a more nuanced picture of what happened. In reading your original column, you made it seem like the social workers were out to score a victory for revolutionary alternative families, casting aside great married heterosexual couples. The special needs angle is interesting -- and underscores my previous point that, in many cases, same-sex couples are adopting kids that no one else might take. Not quite the case here, I agree -- perhaps. It is hard to imagine social workers doing the egregious things that Susan alleges. They're licensed professionals and could certainly lose their licenses over incidents like these, if true. I also think you distort their thinking about family diversity. You have to put their thinking into context -- the way that we as a society have changed our views about adoption and what makes a good parent. Thirty or forty years ago, adopted kids were placed with parents of the same ethnic group/religion. Only married people could adopt. A lot of children were not finding homes as a result. Over time, adoption social workers have come to see that children do well with single adoptive parents, and with same-sex couples (as well as gay and lesbian individuals) and that such placements can be good for children. I don't think they're out to consciously promote family diversity -- they're charged with looking for good homes for children who don't have a home/parents of their own. How do you respond, Maggie, to the fact that there are far more kids available for adoption than there are adoptive parents in general, let alone married couples in particular? This is what motivates most social workers, not promoting family diversity.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee Walzer
Marriagedebate.com posed the question, "Should we prefer married parents or ban marital status discrimination? Or neither?" The question should be rephrased to read: "Should we prefer married parents or permanent homes for children in need of an adoptive family?" Those are the real stakes here, with a real impact on children. Anyone familiar with adoption knows that there are far more children in need of a forever family than there are prospective adoptive parents. Start giving preferences (affirmative action) for married couples and the pool of adoptive parents will shrink accordingly, with children left to suffer the consequences. That is the true travesty of Florida's anti-gay adoption policy -- thousands of children continue to languish in Florida's foster care system, shuttled between foster homes, and never knowing permanency. Ending the adoption ban there would have helped some of these children. The preamble at marriagedebate.com noted that adoption is about the best interests of the child, not "adults' needs and desires." Unfortunately, too many conservatives seem to put their needs and desires to make an ideological point about marriage over the very real needs of children. So much for family values -- better to let children grow up without any parents than to give them love and permanency in the home of a same-sex couple or a single person.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Maggie Gallagher
Lee, why will preferring married couples if they are available shrink the pool? Is there any evidence that say, more children await adoption in Utah (which has a marriage preference) than other states? In fact, there are vastly more parents available to adopt babies, than there are babies available. Special needs kids or older children are a different story.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE FOR ADOPTION?: Lee Walzer
It depends how you define the pool of available kids versus the pool of available parents. If you're talking about adoption of white infants, then yes, there is no shortage of parents. If you add in hispanic and African-American infants, though, the pool sizes shift significantly -- which is why many adoption agencies actually charge less to families adopting children of color. And if you look at international adoption, there obviously is a vastly larger pool of children than there are parents. Even more so, as you noted, with special needs or older children. ALL of these kids need a home and family. I also don't know how you write such a preference into law: Does the preference govern private domestic adoptions where birthmoms choose the adopting parent/s? Does the preference only apply to white infants? I would argue that the preference you seek already exists de facto in private domestic adoptions of white infants. Many adoption agencies will only work with married couples for such adoptions. But the pool of kids needing homes is vastly larger -- and would grow even more were it not for adoptions by singles (of whatever sexual orientation) and same-sex couples.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Maggie Gallagher
Lee, we disagree on a lot of the surrounding facts. For example. One of the main reasons its hard to find parents for minority babies is the National Association of Black Social Workers' stance that it is wrong to allow transracial adoptions. International transracial adoption by white American parents is incredibly common. Affluent married parents pay a great deal of money to adopt children of different races, including dark-skinned ones. Go to any Yale reunion and you'll see. The perception among married folks seeking adoption is that a. there aren't enough babies of any kind to go around (since so many are aborted or kept by unwed moms) and b. there are barriers to domestic adoptions that aren't there for international ones. (such as the right of birth parents to take up to a year to rescind the adoption, the right of the birth father to prevent the adoption even when birth mother consents). You take the Esbenshades' account to be so unlikely as to be perhaps not credible. (Yes, social workers are licensed, and subject to judicial oversight, but almost no-one has legal standing to contest any decision they make.) ( am having an increasingly hard time believing that single and gay people are so much more heroic than married folks as to be the only available families not only sometimes (which is credible) but much or most of the time. It seems to me that social workers as a profession are committed to family diversity as an ideal and are acting on that belief in ways the profession does not consider inappropriate, but I do. (See for example the code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers). Regardless of our dispute here, my point still holds: even if married parents are rare, if they are available they should be preferred, because that is our legal and moral obligation to the babies.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee
We do indeed disagree about a lot of the surrounding facts! Yes, in the 1970s (!), the National Association of Black Social Workers did adopt a stance against transracial adoptions, but legislative changes, and growing understanding about transracial adoptions, has lowered the barriers to such adoptions; the main problem today is the lack of parents to adopt these children -- which is why adoption agencies often charge lower fees to place African-American babies. Indeed, international transracial adoption is quite common -- no disagreement there. Perceptions are just that--perceptions. People have plenty of (mis)perceptions about international adoption as well. Some states provide birthmothers with a lot of time to change their minds, but there are many other states where such adoptions are finalized quickly. Parents seeking domestically adopted infants quite often know what states place them on the best legal ground. I think this is a particularly difficult issue. No one should want a system where a birthmom (and perhaps birthfather) are coerced into surrendering a child that she/they could raise. Likewise, a system that gives a birthmother an inordinate amount of time to change her mind (1 year, for example) is grossly unfair to the child and to adoptive parents. The bigger problem is how our public adoption system works. The system places a premium on reunification with the birth family, if at all possible. Proceedings to terminate parental rights and render a child eligible for adoption are extremely time-consuming and the system is woefully underfunded, leading to large backlogs of cases. I didn't say that singles and gay people step up to the plate more than married heterosexuals, but without these two groups adopting, there would be far greater numbers of kids without families and permanent homes. Social workers believe in family diversity, perhaps, but those working to place children for adoption do not have that as their raison d'etre. Their foremost goal is to find a loving home for children in need of one. You're creating a bogeyman out of social workers and it's not fair -- certainly not fair to children who need a home. The family diversity belief, if it comes out at all, centers on the homestudy that all adoptive parents must have done. Social workers today recognize that loving families come in many forms: single parents, same-sex couples, differently abled parents, and older parents. This development has served children waiting for a home quite well. Maggie, there is no legal, and certainly no moral, obligation to prefer married parents in adoptions. The system overall has a bias in favor of such parents already, I would argue, in terms of the hoops that those in unmarried families have to go through in order to adopt in the first place. The best interest of the child demands finding a permanent, loving home for that child as expeditiously as possible. In the public system, placements are based on how well the parents can match up to the needs of the child, which often are quite many. In private placements, most birthmoms will seek a mom AND a dad of their own accord. In international adoptions, the laws of a particular country (some of whom will let only married couples adopt) govern who can adopt. If you're talking about a preference for married couples, the system already works quite well, save for the odd sensationalist case that you can find. If you care about the kids, and I know that you do, get them a loving home as quickly as possible, regardless of marital status (and sexual orientation).
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Maggie Gallagher
Lee writes: Maggie, there is no legal, and certainly no moral, obligation to prefer married parents in adoptions. Lee, this is the heart of our disagreement. The rest is circumstantial.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Lee
I of course would phrase the difference a bit differently: "Does insisting on a particular family structure for children in need of a home take precedence over finding them a loving home?" I certainly don't think that singles or same-sex couples deserve affirmative action in adoption. The same belief holds vis a vis married couples. In saying this, I certainly do not denigrate married couples. I was raised by a great mom and dad. But I know that children thrive in all types of families. A fascinating study would look at outcomes for adopted children placed in different types of homes. You certainly can cite studies about the value of married parents to children and I can cite studies about children raised by same-sex couples. I wonder whether adoptive status would make a meaningful difference.
SHOULD MARRIED COUPLES GET PREFERENCE IN ADOPTION?: Maggie Gallagher
[Eve notes: This is the last in a long exchange between Maggie and Lee Walzer. Read it from top to bottom!] Lee writes: I of course would phrase the difference a bit differently: "Does insisting on a particular family structure for children in need of a home take precedence over finding them a loving home?" But Lee, I'm explicitly agreeing with you that the answer to your question is no. However, I think we have an obligation to give children to married parents if they are available. You have explicitly rejected that. Or have you? Rephrasing it so you avoid the core question isn't helpful.
ADOPTION: Anonymous
I read Maggie's latest column with great interest. My wife and I have been in the process of adopting through the state of New Jersey and as a part of this process we were required to attend parenting classes. The DYFUS run adoption resource center staff promoted an upcoming event at which a couple that had adopted would be sharing their experience. Much to our chagrin, the couple that showed up on the night of the presentation was comprised of two men. The staff could have chosen any of a hundred different couples. Yet they chose to show and promote a gay couple that had adopted. One of the men even left his wife for a man. I doubt that you need another anecdote on this topic, but I thought I would write to encourage you. You are on the right track! I was absolutely shocked to realize that the state had made a decision to foster and encourage the adoption of children by gay couples. My impression has often been that people are greatly unaware that this is occurring in society. It is a sad example of how a government bureaucracy can implement a policy decision that has far reaching societal impact without the consent of the majority of the people. Friday, January 14, 2005
CHANGE FLA'S ANTI-GAY ADOPTION LAW: Gregory J. Wallance
...Florida is not merely isolated; it is close to aberrant. Florida's argument to the Supreme Court that children "need male and female influences to develop optimally" is simply unsupported. The American Academy of Pediatrics, representing 60,000 pediatricians, supports gay and lesbian adoption. It cites studies that as many as nine million children in the United States have at least one gay or lesbian parent and that there are no data suggesting that the parents' sexual orientation harm the children. As a court in the Arkansas recently found, "There is no factual basis for the statement that being raised by gay or lesbian parents has a negative effect on children's adjustment." The sad part is that Florida, which allows some convicted criminals to adopt, had more than 8,000 children awaiting adoption in 2002, who, but for the ban, now might be in loving and supportive homes. more
COURT REFLECTS PUBLIC AMBIGUITY ON GAYS: Peter A. Brown
The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to ban gay adoption may surprise some, because the high court two years ago, in effect, legalized homosexuality. But this decision shows that the law, for now, seems to have caught up with public opinion on gay-rights matters. There is a consensus that homosexuals deserve the same basic rights as all Americans. But those individual rights may be tempered due to public concerns about the impact of homosexual conduct on society. And despite gay-rights advocates' efforts to sell their agenda as the next step in the civil-rights movement, the courts and the country are not yet sold on their one gigantic premise: That when it comes to questions about conflicting rights and government protections, homosexuality should merit the same status in the legal pecking order as does race. more
CONSERVATIVE RABBIS MAY EXPEL COLLEAGUE: From the New York Times
A rabbi who has officiated at the marriage of gay and lesbian couples has been threatened with expulsion from the Conservative movement's rabbinical association, though movement officials say it is not her activism that is at issue but her repeated defiance of the movement's rules. Ayelet S. Cohen, the junior rabbi at Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, a largely gay and lesbian synagogue in Greenwich Village, says she is being punished for her openness in performing the ceremonies. Officials of the association say it has nothing to do with the gay marriages. Rather, they say, she faces expulsion because she has repeatedly defied long-established rules for taking a job at a synagogue. The Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative movement, with 1,600 rabbis, voted in 1992 not to ordain gays as rabbis and said that rabbis should not perform same-sex marriages. But the assembly stopped short of declaring the ban on marriage or commitment ceremonies a binding standard, tacitly allowing individual rabbis some discretion. Various rabbis within the movement have estimated that 20 to 40 rabbis have performed these ceremonies. Both the Reform and Reconstructionist movements ordain people who are gay and allow rabbis to marry gay people. Orthodox Jews neither ordain nor marry gays. ... Whatever happens to Rabbi Cohen, the issue is not going to go away. The assembly's committee on Jewish law and standards is meeting in April and will revisit the issue of gay and lesbian unions. more
IF GAYS CAN'T MARRY IN THIS CHURCH, NO ONE WILL: From the New York Times
In a protest against the Episcopal Church's refusal to allow same-sex marriages, the leaders of a church in the stately East Rock section of this city have announced that they will perform no marriage ceremonies at all. The decision, conveyed on Thursday in a letter from the priest to the 115 families of St. Thomas's Episcopal Church, is a novel challenge to the social and religious barriers to marriage between homosexuals. Some Episcopal churches have handled the problem by offering gay couples a blessing ceremony that is not legally considered a marriage. Lay leaders at St. Thomas's have decided that the absence of a ritual at the heart of a church's spiritual and social functions is a powerful way to protest what they consider a form of religious discrimination. The church has adopted the new policy even though no gay couples have asked to be married there. more
"UNITY" STATEMENT SEEN AS MARRIAGE RETREAT: From the Washington Blade
Gay leaders who were not a part of a unity statement released on Thursday by major gay rights groups criticized the collaborative document, noting that marriage equality was featured last on the agenda's priority list. One gay rights leader went further and said the statement appeared to be political cover for criticism the Human Rights Campaign received last month for what appeared to be a retreat from marriage equality and support for President Bush's efforts to privatize social security. Joan Garry, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, dubbed the official document, "Civil Rights, Community, Movement," a "state of the union" for the gay rights movement, noting that 22 leaders from major gay rights groups worked to shape the statement. During a conference call with reporters on Wednesday, Garry said the statement was designed to quell pessimism over what some say was a disappointing 2004 election and to show unity within the gay rights movement. The statement articulates the future goals of the signatory groups and reiterates that there will be no retreat from seeking full marriage equality. ... While all of the leaders agreed that there would be no retreat from the marriage issue, marriage equality was the last item of eight joint goals featured on the statement's priority list. Robin Tyler, a longtime activist from California who heads DontAmend.com, a national grassroots organization focused on marriage equality, said she was greatly disturbed to learn that marriage equality is not listed higher. "The fact that they would accept it listed being at the bottom of the page makes me wonder if this issue will now be placed for many of these organizations on the bottom of their list," Tyler said. "Even though we know every other issue they list is important, recognizing our relationships through marriage equality is the Trojan Horse in which all of the other issues can ride. The grassroots people--who have struggled so valiantly--will not allow any back fighting by any LGBT organization or individual in commitment to this issue." ... Also discussed during the hour-long phone conversation was the future of legal challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Matt Coles, director of the ACLU's Gay & Lesbian Civil Rights Project, said that if DOMA were to be challenged, lawyers would solely focus on the part of DOMA that denies gay citizens federal benefits. Left unchallenged would be the portion of DOMA that allows states to refuse recognition to a same-sex marriage performed in another state, out of fear that the legal claim would be rejected, and even if successful might encourage passage of a federal amendment banning gay marriage. more
ARGUMENTS IN NY SSM CASE: From The Associated Press
Attorneys for 25 same-sex couples seeking the right to marry said Friday the state's opposition to gay marriage is akin to the mentality that once allowed slavery and discrimination against women and minorities. "The basis of the (the state's) opposition is that it goes against tradition. If tradition carried on, we would still have slavery," said Mariette Geldenhuys, one of the attorneys for the same-sex couples that have been dubbed the "Ithaca 50." Geldenhuys, in arguments here before state Supreme Court Justice Robert Mulvey, also pointed out the state made it illegal in 2002 to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and also allows same-sex couples to adopt children. more
MORE ON THE LUTHERANS: Terry Mattingly
...Which brings us to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America task force and its report on how to handle the explosive issue of same-sex unions and the status of clergy who are sexually active outside of marriage. After three years of work, the task force tried to cut the Solomonic baby right down the middle and craft a non-decision decision. This suggested two things. The ELCA (1) is ready for shared Communion with the via-media experts at the Episcopal Church and (2) the ongoing storm of sex-war headlines will continue in oldline Protestantism as people fight over clashing concepts of truth -- experiential progressives vs. traditionalists who stress moral absolutes. The issue of sex outside of marriage (gay and straight) makes for great headlines and points toward more fundamental differences in almost every set of pews in America. Almost everyone covered this story and many linked the Lutheran events to the wider global conflict in the Anglican Communion. But what interested me were the leads. Almost everyone said that both sides of the conflict were ticked off (maybe). Who really won and who really lost? ... However, the lead that I think captured the most interesting element of the story came from Godbeat veteran Julia Duin at the Washington Times. She declared a winner and noted another fascinating wrinkle. Check this out: A Lutheran task force handed a victory to homosexual rights groups yesterday by recommending that although the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America should not change its policy against ordaining homosexual clergy, it should not censure churches that break the rule. In other words, progressive Lutherans, you are not to call attention to yourselves. Do not speak clearly. Keep your head down and run out the clock. Above all, do not turn this into more headlines that will hurt the denomination's finances or statistics. This raises a question for me: What does it mean when conservative newspapers say the left won and liberal newspapers say that no one was victorious? Just curious. more
CHURCHES TAKE STEPS ON ISSUE OF SSM: From the Washington Post
U.S. Episcopal bishops expressed regret yesterday for having consecrated the group's first openly gay bishop but said they need more time to respond to a call that they halt such ordinations and stop blessing same-sex marriages. The issue, which threatens the 77 million-member worldwide Anglican Church with schism, also swept the largest U.S. Lutheran denomination on the same day. In that separate development, a divided task force of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America declined to recommend that the denomination bless same-sex unions or approve the ordination of ministers involved in gay relationships, but the task force called on congregants to work for ways to "live together faithfully in the midst of our disagreements." ... Meanwhile, the report issued by the Lutheran task force will be weighed by that group's 5 million members in the United States and the Caribbean ahead of consideration by a churchwide assembly in Florida in August. The task force backed a 1993 statement by its Conference of Bishops, which said pastors and congregations can be trusted to exercise "wisdom and discretion" in ministering to same-sex couples. The group's policy says no pastor may engage in heterosexual or homosexual relations outside marriage -- and it defines marriage as a lifelong relationship between a man and a woman. The group does allow gay pastors who remain celibate. more
KAN. SENATE APPROVES MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: From the Kansas City Star
The Kansas Senate today approved a proposal that would ban same-sex marriages in the state Constitution. If the Kansas House of Representatives concurs, the marriage amendment would go before Kansas voters on April 5. The proposal would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. ... A proposal to put the question before Kansas voters failed last spring. The measure was approved in the Senate but fell five votes short of the necessary two-thirds approval in the House. more
STANDING QUESTIONED IN IA "LESBIAN DIVORCE" CASE: From the Des Moines Register
A lawsuit to derail a judge's ruling granting a divorce to a lesbian couple may face an uphill battle on a technicality. The Iowa Supreme Court today questioned whether a group of conversative state lawmakers, joined by a Republican Congressman Steve King and a Le Mars pastor, had legal standing to bring the lawsuit. "What injuries have you suffered?" Chief Justice Louis Lavorato asked as the case was formally submitted to the court. more
MORE LOVE: Camassia
...It's become an axiom among social conservatives that the sexual revolution "won," and yet the actual sexual revolutionaries I know feel very much like they lost. And the article describes well the reason: love's liberation from religion and tradition mostly just left it vulnerable to being snatched by consumerism. Neither the True Love nor the Free Love ideals that I described earlier have really come to fruition. more
DIVORCE REFORM IN GEORGIA: From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Spouses seeking a divorce soon may have to wait longer before they can call it quits, and those who commit adultery could lose their rights to marital property. Several state legislators are pushing bills they say will strengthen marriage by making divorce a longer, and perhaps costlier, process. A Senate bill introduced Wednesday would extend the waiting period from 30 days to six months for an uncontested divorce of a couple with children, and to four months if no children are involved. The bill by state Sen. Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg) calls children "innocent victims" of legal separation and divorce. They are often "negatively affected academically, socially, emotionally, and psychologically" by the stress and trauma of divorce, the legislation declares. Last year, a similar bill was approved in the Senate, 33-21, but died in the House Judiciary Committee. With Republicans in control of the House, the divorce bill now has a good chance of passing. Legislation to stem divorces or make them harder to acquire may receive support from Democrats, who also have expressed concern about the high number of failed marriages. ... The bill before the Georgia Senate would require divorcing parents with children to attend classes for a minimum of four hours that focus on the effects of divorce and separation on children. Many judicial circuits in Georgia already require such classes. ... The waiting period would be waived if either the husband or wife has a protective order or if there has been family violence. Some legislators expressed concern about meddling in the private lives of Georgia citizens. ... In the House, state Rep. Nikki Randall, a Macon Democrat, filed a bill that would prohibit a divorcing man or woman from receiving any marital property if he or she committed adultery. The adulterer would be required to attend 12 hours of marital counseling before the divorce would be final. more
22 GAY/LESBIAN GROUPS RESET PRIORITIES IN WAKE OF LOSSES: From the San Francisco Chronicle
Twenty-two gay and lesbian rights groups, smarting in the aftermath of the November election and bracing for President Bush's second inaugural, issued a unity statement Wednesday insisting they are not backing off marriage equality but will simultaneously push for other "common priorities." These include hate crimes legislation, employment protection, immigration rights for gays and lesbian partners, overturning the ban on gays in the military and continuing battle against constitutional bans on same-sex marriage in states and Congress. ... The statement -- signed by Lambda Legal, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Log Cabin Republicans, Stonewall Democrats, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and others -- maintains that American civil rights movements have historically proceeded through a "complex interweaving of legal victories, political progress and advances in public opinion." Noting that only 18 months have elapsed since the U.S. Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality, a little more than a year since the Massachusetts high court created the nation's first same-sex marriage rights, and weeks since California passed a sweeping domestic partnership law, the groups said, "We have every reason to be optimistic." The statement includes an excerpt from a People magazine interview with the president and Laura Bush, in which Bush said gay couples joined in a civil union "of course" are as much a family as his own. Still, the renewed focus on more practical matters after a year in which marriage equality grabbed the national spotlight and became a central focus of a presidential election campaign, indicates a retrenchment, said University of Pennsylvania analyst Nathaniel Persily. "It is quite clear that most Americans attach a certain significance to the word marriage, such that it eclipsed some of their otherwise egalitarian feelings toward gays," Persily said. Hospital visitation and inheritance rights, by contrast, do not seem to be eclipsed. "The decision to move one step at a time and focus on other areas is a smart strategic choice on their part," Persily said. "We find on most questions of equal rights, Americans are willing to make sure that gays are treated equally with heterosexuals, but when it comes to marriage, people just have an emotional, visceral reaction." more | ||||||||||
