Bans on Gay Adoption: Irrational

Bans on Gay Adoption:

Irrational prejudice that hurts children as well as gay and lesbian couples

Many gay men and women today are raising their children side-by-side straight families. They are going to PTA meetings, fighting about homework, and having family dinners together. Yet, despite the crying need for good families for children in need of parents, same-sex couples often remain stymied in the adoptive process. The most important deciding factor regarding the placement of children must be the welfare of the child, not the sexuality of the parents. In the United States there are far more children available for adoption then there are families ready, able and qualified to adopt them. To add to the crisis some of those families are looking elsewhere to adopt other than America. But there is a group of people that gets turned away from being able to adopt: gay men and women. We need to understand as a society the reasons behind our choice of denying the gay men and women children and therefore denying the children a stable home and family that provides unconditional love.

The 'market' for adoptive children is subject to many capricious forces of supply and demand. While it is true that there is a high level of demand for babies of certain ethnic groups, it is also true that there is a high demand for parents for high-risk children. Many parents do not want to adopt older children; children with special needs, or even openly 'out' gay and lesbian adolescents. Moreover, the economy has caused a spike in demand in many areas of the country for adoptive parents. "In Michigan, more than 16,000 children are in foster care, with approximately 41% of those hailing from Macomb, Oakland and Wayne counties. Fueled in part by a tight local and national economy, these offices now handle more than 2,400 annual complaints, 2,000 investigations, and 760 additional, confirmed cases of neglect and abuse" (MacLeod 2011). The stresses of a poor economy can place an additional strain upon families. "The need for foster and adoptive families is immense" in depressed states such as Michigan (Carpenter 2007).

Because of such high levels of demand, it is absurd that children without families should be lacking in love and attention, simply because the only persons available to care for them are gay, lesbian, and transgender. Consider these two cases, two ordinary people with fairly extraordinary qualifications, both of whom are making a contribution to their local communities:

Rebecca Meiksin, 22, is white, middle-class, college-educated, with plans to earn a graduate degree in public health.

Terrance McGeorge, 20, is black, grew up in the Hill District, has a high school degree and works in an AmeriCorps service program at Beginning With Books (Carpenter 2007).

Both of these people are the children of gay parents. Contrary to stereotypes which purport that people who grow up with gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves or to be troubled, study after study indicates that "outcomes for children of gay and lesbian parents are no better -- and no worse -- than for other children, whether the measures involve peer group relationships, self-esteem, behavioral difficulties, academic achievement, or warmth and quality of family relationships" (Carpenter 2007). Having gay parents is neither a clear advantage nor a disadvantage for children's future success in life. Other factors, such as the level of interest of the parents, the warmth and closeness of the relationships in the family and the economic situation of the parents are all more important in gauging the likelihood of the child's success (Carpenter 2007).

In fact, a San Francisco adoption agency launched a new publicity drive "designed to match Lesbian Gay Bi or Transgender (LGBT) children with parents or foster parents who will understand their needs. It is thought that of the10, 000 children in foster care in the Bay area, some 15% may be LGBT" (Knowles 2007). While the campaign was not specifically designed to target same-sex couples, the marketing campaign was initially focused upon the gay community although "non-LGBT parents are very willing to parent LGBT youth" (Knowles 2006). This is one example of how the unique situation of the family must be the deciding factor, not a predetermined, cookie-cutter policy.

However, not only gay teens can thrive in a same-sex household. It is estimated that today 6% of same-sex parents have an adopted child, which is an extraordinary figure given that some adoption agencies report that a few gay couples they have encountered are still unaware of the fact that they can adopt children at all (Carpenter 2007; Knowles 2006). Same-sex parent-headed families are extremely diverse -- 45% of same-sex parents are either black or Latino (Carpenter 2007). The numbers of gay parents are on the increase: approximately 1 in 5 male same-sex couples and 1 in 3 female same-sex couples are raising children, up from 1 in 20 male couples and 1 in 5 female couples in 1990 (Belkin 2011).

It is not only gay and lesbian advocacy groups that support same-sex parents being allowed to adopt. A number of professional medical organizations committed to the welfare of children, such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association " have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child" (Carpenter 2007). A literature review of 67 studies, all conducted by the APA found that children of same-sex couples share far more similarities than they do differences. A "2001 meta-analysis of those studies found that the sexual orientation of a parent is irrelevant to the development of a child's mental health and social development and to the quality of a parent-child relationship" (Carpenter 2007). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health surveyed 12,000 high school students and also found comparable outcomes for children of both gays and heterosexual children (Carpenter 2007).

The only studies to show discrepancies between the two groups have, if anything, showed positive results for the children of gay couples: daughters of lesbian mothers "are more likely to aspire to professions that are traditionally considered male, like doctors or lawyers -- 52% in one study said that was their goal, compared with 21% of daughters of heterosexual mothers, who are still more likely to say they want to be nurses or teachers when they grow up" (Belkin 2009). And 95% of boys from both types of families were more likely to select the more traditionally masculine jobs when surveyed (Belkin 2009). This may largely be attributed to the fact that girls with lesbian parents have not had stereotypes about women's lack of empowerment reinforced in the home, along with the desirably higher paychecks traditionally male occupations usually command.

Allowing gays to become parents creates a more equitable society and reinforces norms of American social justice. Imagine this scenario -- a young teenage couple gets pregnant by chance. The pregnancy is unplanned, and rather haphazardly, the couple decides to raise the child. Imagine countless instances in which people decide to have children for bad reasons than for good. Why should they be allowed to do so, because of an accident of biology, while gay couples should be barred from sharing their homes in a loving and open fashion? Being infertile is an accident of biology, and according to law, so long as a heterosexual couple does not have any medical reasons that would prohibit them from doing so they can pursue IV or other fertility technology as an option to remedy their condition. The heterosexual couple can also, provided they can offer a child a good home, decide to adopt. Being gay is similarly not a choice, and is an accident of biology. It is no different from being born unable to have children. Simply because a couple does not have the ability to give birth to children does not mean that they do not have the ability to give love to children. When infertile couples adopt, their generosity of heart is celebrated. This should also be the case with gay, lesbian, and bisexual parents.

The idea of an 'accident' of biology is also reflected in the fact that many gay couples currently have children because one of the parents realized he or she was gay after getting married or having a child. These couples show themselves able to parent in a manner that is equally effective as their heterosexual peers, further supporting the case for adoption. And some gay couples, because they fear the adoptive process would be too difficult to navigate for a same-sex couple, are making the decision to have children on their own. While becoming a parent is always noble choice, it does not help the children who currently need families today, and allowing gay couples to take in children who desperately need a home seems to be a win-win situation for all.

Of course, many objections have been raised against gays becoming parents -- and these objections often echo the same, prejudiced objections brought up against gay marriage, namely that being gay is immoral and an affront to common decency. However, in the United States, the Establishment Clause has created a wall between church and state, and the morality of church policies cannot impact the laws of the land. While people are free to believe that being gay is immoral or unnatural, their religious beliefs cannot and should not hamper the rights and the liberties of others, including the right to the pursuit of happiness of gay couples who regard their love as natural and good.

Another objection raised to gay adoption that is frequently cited is the idea that children will experience negative psychological consequences because they will be teased at school. But these objections could also be raised against the ability of biracial couples to wed and to have children, or simply the children of any religious or minority group who suffers persecution. The problem is not the teasing of other students, but the prejudices of society. Such prejudice and bullying must be confronted and rooted out, rather than condoned by attempting to limit the rights of gays to have children. The child of one gay male couple said "his own robust self-esteem stems from a strong relationship with his father" (Carpenter 2007).

Conservative groups also argue that it is better for children to have both a mother and a father. But while having the economic and emotional support of two parents may be extremely beneficial, this does not necessarily mean that the two parents have to be of the same gender. And not all traditional couples seek out children in the U.S. International adoption, which offers a greater likelihood of securing a desirably young baby, currently remains the preferred method for most heterosexual, Caucasian couples: 60% since its peak of nearly 23,000 in 2004. (This is partially due to the fact that birth mothers are less apt to change their minds and it is easier to find newborns abroad). Gay couples may be more willing to adopt nontraditional children if they are not given priority by adoptive services for babies, or simply because they are more willing to overlook conventional stereotypes and expectations about what a traditional family resembles (Greenblatt 2011).