Introduction
Emboldened by increasing global recognition of their sexual orientation, gays and lesbians’ latest venture into obtaining more rights has moved them into the arena of parenthood. They have done this by adopting one of three methods: firstly, they bring with them children from earlier relationships; secondly, they take the surrogate route that involves heavy financial cost and considerable legal hurdles; and thirdly, the lesbian parents choose to get impregnated by artificial insemination {like in vitro fertilization [IVF]} although several clinics in the country are unwilling to provide such treatment to same-sex couples (Delaney).
However, there are increasing numbers of same-sex couples that are in favor of a fourth method of enjoying parenthood that is freely available to their heterosexual counterparts – legal adoption. In the United States, only D.C and ten states {Massachusetts, New York, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Oregon, Vermont, Illinois, Maine and New Jersey} (Delaney) presently permit same-sex couples to adopt children. As adoption by same-sex couples is presently a matter that the states of the U.S have to decide upon (Hewitt), it is high time the remaining states emulate the above ten states, take cognizance of the overwhelming arguments in favor of the practice, stop their unfair restriction and allow same-sex couples to adopt children.
Arguments against adoption by same-sex couples
The first argument is that the concept of adoption by gay and lesbian parents goes against Christian values and teachings which state that an individual having two parents is self-evidently true as well as universally accepted as being true. This stance is reinforced by the Fifth Commandment: “Honor thy father and mother.” The fact that the United States is a predominantly Christian country should encourage it to strict adhere to Christian teachings and do its best to promote them (The First Post).
The second argument is that certain sectors of human life cannot be regulated by human laws and must be decided by the conscience of people (The First Post). There are still many people today who look upon the traditional nuclear family as the ideal example for parenting, comprising of a husband and wife of opposite sexes, each of whom contributes his or her own individual features (Hechavarria). The opinion {reflecting the conscience} of Americans as obtained by Newsweek in 2002 found only 46% of them supported adoption by same-sex couples. This figure dropped to 45% two years later (Jones). This clearly shows that the majority of people in the U.S find the practice of same-sex parenting ‘wrong’; the practice should hence not be legally permitted (The First Post).
The third argument is that children adopted by same-sex parents would suffer as they start feeling that their family is different from other normal families (Hechavarria). Children require role models of both sexes in order to get a well-balanced development in their lives. This aspect is certainly lacking in case of same-sex parents. A prime example of this argument is the case of boys adopted by two lesbians; such boys, in the absence of fathers, tend to under-achieve mainly because there are presently very few male teaches in the country’s primary schools (The First Post). The children will also have to endure constant deriding and tormenting from others (Belge), especially at school which will make their lives miserable.
The fourth argument is that, given the well-known and vociferous opposition by the Roman Catholic Church against homosexuality per se, if the many adoption agencies run by Roman Catholics shut down in protest against same-sex adoption, the number of adopted children will greatly reduce, thereby causing more children to languish in the inadequate child welfare system (The First Post).
Arguments in favor of adoption by same-sex couples
Firstly, there are an inordinately large number of children in the country who are on the adoption waiting list. Rob Woronoff, spokesperson of Child Welfare League of America {CWLA} has gone on record to state that the child welfare system in the U.S. is mired in deep crisis because there are not enough families coming forward to adopt children. North American Council on Adoptable Children reports that nearly 520,000 children are in foster homes in the U.S.
Out of these, although 120,000 are ready for adoption, only 50,000 ultimately reach permanent homes every year (Stone). While the last two figures mentioned above were tabulated in 2006, the current figure has climbed higher, namely, there are now 125,000 orphans waiting to be adopted in the country (Delaney). From the point of view of the despairing children waiting for adoption, a family – whether founded by same-sex or heterosexual couples – is much better than the country’s child welfare system (The First Post).
Allowing adoption by same-sex parents would benefit the country’s child welfare system as it would enhance the number of couples who are ready to adopt children, which in turn would transfer more children out of the child welfare system into dependable families. Such a move would turn out to be beneficial not only for the children in question, but also would lower the financial load to the U.S taxpayers (Hewitt).
Secondly, since same-sex couples have themselves been exposed to societal discrimination because of their sexual orientation, they are better equipped to relate to and interact with adopted children who may have problematic pasts (Hewitt). A large percentage of the children awaiting adoption are the ‘odd’ ones: older children, or children with special needs. The children left behind, especially the ‘odd’ ones, have been accepted in foster care by same-sex couples, who are now desirous of adopting the children (Belge).
Renowned actress Rosie O’Donnell {a lesbian living with her same sex partner Kelli O’Donnell and their 4 adopted children} unerringly points to the reason for same-sex couples’ partiality towards adopting ‘odd’ children: “As a gay person as a child, you kind of know what it’s like to be the odd one out” (Stone). Same-sex couples are in a position to better persuade a child that they understand intolerance and bias since they have experienced them.
This feature enables same-sex couples to assist adopted children in emotionally dealing with their problematic pasts (Hewitt). By not allowing such adoption, the authorities are not permitting the already existing loving relationship between children and same-sex couples to blossom into full-fledged fruition acceptable by society. This attitude is especially unfair to the children as they are being refused the opportunity to live in safe, sound and permanent households (Belge)
Thirdly, scientific studies have discovered two important facts. The first is that interaction with parents {rather than the parents’ sexual leaning} exercises greater swaying power over children. The second is that children reared in one or two same-sex parent homes do not emotionally or socially lag behind in any way as compared to children living in heterosexual parents’ homes (Belge). These studies have been instrumental in evoking the firm support for same-sex couples to adopt children by the respected American Academy of Pediatrics and the Child Welfare League of America (Stone).
In fact, perhaps the most authoritative organization on the subject, The American Psychological Association, passed a resolution in 2004 that firmly declared: “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children” (Delaney). In fact, same-sex couples score better than heterosexual couples in this regard because the adopted children are raised in an environment where they can comprehend both sides of sexuality and be in a position to opt for a more informed choice while responding to their own inner sexuality (Hechavarria).
Fourthly, if a gay or lesbian couple gives birth to a child by using the artificial insemination method, U.S law totally excludes the non-participating spouse while only identifing the birth-giving spouse as the child’s lawful guardian. By not permitting adoption {second-parent adoption in this particular instance}, the non-participating spouse loses any chance of gaining legal custody of the child. As a result, if the custodial parent dies, the other parent and child are both adversely affected. Despite having been actively involved in rearing the child, maybe even for many years, the other parent is looked upon as a stranger by the law. The child, on its part, can exercise no claim on the other parent’s health insurance or social security in case that parent becomes disabled or legally incapable (Belge).
Fifthly, there is no doubt that single parenthood {either caused by divorce or children being born to unmarried parents (Hechavarria)} is increasing in the U.S. There is also no doubt that this has adverse effects on children raised in such an environment – particularly reduced educational accomplishments and bad behavior. In such a scenario, same-sex couples provide adopted children a better deal based on the love and care by two full-time parents (The First Post).
Lastly, the act of prohibiting gays and lesbians from enjoying parenthood is just simple and gross discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. While such discrimination against them has vanished from all other areas of life in the country, there is no reason for it to be stubbornly exercised only as far as parenting rights of same-sex couples are concerned (The First Post). The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment advocates equal shelter to every citizen under the law, and prohibits the government from providing differential treatment to any group of citizens unless it can prove that by doing so it is attaining a valid policy goal.
By this definition, states prohibiting same-sex couples to adopt children are guilty of unfairly targeting gays and lesbians desirous to adopt children, and such prohibition not only does not attain any valid policy goal but also goes against the state’s duty to provide protection and well-being to the children as they are denied the chance to move into safe and secure homes under the care of loving and caring parents (Hechavarria).
The U.S. has shown the world time and again that it does not compromise on granting full rights and liberty to its citizens – the two best examples of this are that it waged a bitter Civil War {1861 – 1865} to get rid of slavery, and nearly a century later, it passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 to put an end to discrimination of all types – especially racial discrimination. Therefore, withholding the right of same-sex couples to adopt children – albeit by some states – is a slur against the country’s good and clean track record as far as human rights are concerned.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that a fair evaluation of the arguments of both sides points in favor of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. This perception intensifies when one accepts that the issue of adoption by gay and lesbian couples in most states is no more than an ill-concealed attempt by right wing factions to revive the prejudice that earlier existed against gays and lesbians. First it was formal recognition, then acceptance into the armed forces, then it was marriage and now it is adoption.
The latest issue has nothing to do with the welfare of adoptable children, but only glaringly exposes the lengths to which the anti-gay right wing will stoop to incorporate their prejudice into state laws and use them as a ploy to attract a greater share of the anti-gay vote bank. Sadly for them, their efforts are doomed to failure simply because Americans are displaying more understanding and acceptance of gay and lesbian relationships {formal recognition of gays and lesbians, their acceptance into the armed forces and same-sex marriage are now totally validated in the country}, and they will definitely view the right wing stance towards same-sex parental adoption as unjustifiably punitive. This is evident from the 2009 USA Today/Gallup poll which found that a majority {54%} of Americans are in support of adoption rights for same-sex couples (Jones).
Last, but not the least, given its enviable role as the leading nation in the world today, the example of the U.S. increasingly permitting same-sex couples to adopt children is being appreciated and emulated by other countries of the world led by Sweden, Canada, the U.K and South Africa (Hechavarria). It is the duty of the states presently prohibiting same-sex adoption rights to change their laws and show solidarity with the rest of the nation so that the country’s very impressive track record regarding withholding of human rights remains unwaveringly sound.
References used
Belge, Kathy. “Lesbian and Gay Adoption Rights.” About. 2010. Web.
Delaney, Lorah. “Gay Adoption and Parenting.” Suite101. 2010. Web.
“Gay Adoption.” The First Post. 2007. Web.
Hechavarria, Diana. “Family Matters: Gay and Lesbian Adoption.” Associatedcontent. 2005. Web.
Hewitt, Doug. “Pros of Gay Adoption.” Livestrong. 2009. Web.
Jones, Jeffrey M. “Majority of Americans Continue to Oppose Gay Marriage.” Gallup, Inc. 2009. Web.
Stone, Andrea. “Both Sides on Gay Adoption Cite Concern for Children.” USA Today. 2006. Web.