Hurdles upon hurdles. Since we’re not permitted to sign a marriage contract, I guess our homes are unstable or something. How can such a decision be reached when it can’t even be supported by real data. And why isn’t there an effort being put forth (by anybody) to see what exactly happens to children raised in “unmarried” households? Seems to me that the moment we get one good study that yields evidence that kids grow up just as well with two mothers or two fathers, we can go back to that judge and ask him on what exactly he bases his “compelling interest”.
Anybody know what “scientific evidence” this man is referring to? Does anybody know of any reason why children should only be adopted by two people who are permitted by law to sign a contract stating that they will remain together until such time as they decide not to?
This is just ridiculous. At least with gay marriage there is a economic reason to oppose it from the viewpoint of business(though I wish they would just get it over with and allow it). but banning adoptions by gay couples is nothing more that forcing the “morals” of some onto everyone. Someday it will dawn on these people that they are living in the past. well, at least i hope it will.
I don’t think that’s going to solve the problem. There are just too many examples of arguments which can never be unequivocally laid to rest on the basis of scientific studies. It is nearly always possible to find studies done by certified, apparently-reputable scientists to contradict any given position on these sort of issues.
An example that come straight to mind is the question of whether or not television violence has an impact on the short-term and long-term behaviour of children. There are many similar cases, where each side of the argument lines up its panel of experts and sends them into battle.
Policy regarding issues such as this is much more frequently determined by social and moral agendas than by any definitive statement from the scientific community on the subject. Even the recent findings against big tobacco were as much a result of social pressures from citizens and anti-smoking lobbies as they were the result of consensus among the scientific community. It is true that most medical experts believe smoking to be dangerous and addictive, but this was not the only factor in the victories against the cigarette companies.
So, i’m sure that you could probably find more than one study recommending the suitability of gay couples for raising a family, but until you get conservative groups (and a not inconsiderable proportion of the judiciary) to change their social (rather than scientific) objections to such unions, you might be fighting a losing battle.
Hey, move on up to BC. This week our Human Rights Tribunal ruled that lesbian couples that have a kid thanks to an anonymous sperm donor are now allowed to put both their names on the birth certificate-- instead of the non-carrying partner having to adopt the child.
My sister’s partner had two children that she (my sister) adopted. When I mentioned this to a religious fanatic at work, she said “Well, they’re not REALLY your nieces.” I refrained from arguing with her (never try to teach a pig to sing) and starting a Pit thread.
Speaking from a more conservative viewpoint, I still don’t like the law.
Yeah, I agree. So what? If the law keeps gays from adopting, then a single mom or single dad can adopt and a gay couple can’t. An unmarried heterosexual couple can adopt too. The law only targets gays. It doesn’t cause kids to be raised by married couples, it only prevents them from being raised by gay couples.
If there is one thing we have proven in this country over the last four decades, it is that other things being equal, it is better to raise a child with two parents than one. Maybe it is better to have kids raised by a married couple of two sexes than an unmarried couple of the same sex, but it’s obviously better to have the kids raised by two parents of any sex than by a single parent or by a never-ending parade of foster homes. Disqualifying an available two-parent household from adoption ain’t in the kids’ “best interest.”
It’s a bad law. Whether it’s unconstitutional is debatable; the courts should not overturn laws because they’re stupid, like this one, but only if they’re unconstitutional. Since adoption is intended for the protection of the children, rather than the parents, it doesn’t necessarily violate the 14th amendment equal protection clause; it may be a stupid law, but all the kids up for adoption are equally affected by this stupid law. So I don’t necessarily blame the judge for finding it constitutional, but I do blame the legislators and would likely vote against any legislator who supported that law.
I recently had a debate over gay adoption on the adoption listserve I belong to. Part of the deal for many of these kids is “Is any home better than no home?” Granted, I wouldn’t want kids to be placed in abusive homes, but generally speaking, two parents are better than one (two straight parents makes life easier, but in my mind isn’t necessary - so does two white parents, or two rich parents), one parent is better than stable foster care, stable foster care is better than a series of foster placements. And, when we are talking about open adoption-birthmom-chooses, then does the state have a compelling interest to override the wishes of the birthmom.
(Anyone interested in this topic should read Dan Savage’s The Kid)
When I read an article about this in today’s paper, It made
me think:
Isn’t banning Gays from adopting kids basically the same
thing as banning a single person or a non-white couple from
adopting??