Banning Republican Adoption
With recent bills by anti-gay forces to ban adoption by gays, it was only a matter of time before the potential parenting skills of all manner of groups come under fire.
Ohio State Senator Robert Hagen has introduced a bill to bar Republicans from adopting children or becoming foster parents, since as he argues:
"[C]redible research'' shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing ``emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.''
Hagan admits that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims, but then he notes, neither do those who argue gays are a threat as parents.
Hagen's bill is tongue-in-cheek, but more seriously, the reality is that 20,000 children each year go into the foster care system who will never get adopted, 20,000 children desperate for a home but who will reach adulthood with no one EVER adopting them.
With so much need to recruit more adoptive parents, it's a bit crazy (and cruel) that any loving parents, whatever their political party or sexual orientation, would be barred from adopting.
Crossposted from PLAN.
Thanks for posting this, Nathan. I laughed out loud in my car when I first heard this report, since my mom's an Ohio Democrat and would fervently support this bill.
My gut sense is that the effort to ban lesbians and gay men from being able to adopt won't get far; most Americans are just too sensible to let this happen, realizing that it would hurt kids. But it is terrifying many lesbians and gay men. I'm hearing from LGBT activists in Georgia and Kentucky (two places where there's a big push to bring this bill) that parents or parents-to-be are so terrified that that their kids will literally be taken away that they are withdrawing from any political activity.
Imagine if you're a co-mom with no legal ties to the child you've cared for (with your partner, the biomom) since before birth, and a bill like this starts rolling around the legislature. Those who can leave the state make plans to do so. Those who can't are terrified even to work on the most basic LGBT rights efforts--such as bans on discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. (By the way, in most parts of the country, it's perfectly legal to fire someone for being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. And yes, it does happen.)
FYI, when the antigay forces (by which I mean very specifically the American Family Association, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Traditional Values Coalition, ACLJ, Liberty Counsel, etc., and their state affiliates) say they have scientific evidence that LGBT parents are bad for kids, ask which "scientist" they mean. They will cite Paul Cameron, who is notorious for fabricating the most horrifying "data" about gay men in particular, and has been censured by such professional org'ns as the American Psychological Assn. and the American Sociological Assn.
February 26, 2006 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think everyone who is opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption should be required to read Dan Savage's books The Kid and The Committment. Any reasonable person (assuming they get past the graphic sexual content, although who would expect otherwise fromm Dan Savage) would read those two books and have a change of heart. As you said, Nathan, there are so many children who need a loving home and it is a tragedy to deny them that based on the politics of exclusion.
I assume that James Dobson would think Dan Savage's son would be better off living with his homeless, teen aged (at the time of the child's birth) mother, and there's nothing anyone can do to change that. He is a man whose heart is filled with hatred.
Of course, I actually think that the super right wing actually hates poor people and foster children too. I know at least two conservative couples with fertility issues who've said to me that they would never consider domestic adoption. There are, of course, legitimate reasons for choosing international adoption, but that limits further the pool of people willing to open their lives to these children. How sad is that?
February 26, 2006 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we could require Republican Sterilization as well?
If its good for me it must be Good 4 A Merica
February 26, 2006 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me thin-skinned, but as the parent of a daughter adopted internationally, I'm not amused by any discussion of adoption that suggests, even tongue in cheek, that one group of persons is more or less fit to parent.
Dawn, the issue of domestic v. international adoption is not simple, and each parent considering adoption must make that decision thoughtfully and prayerfully. If you have done so, bless you. If you have not, I urge you to re-think your position. After a day at church, the ice rink, the grocery, and a friends' home for Sunday supper with my five-year-old, I claim nothing sad about our decision to adopt a girl from China.
February 27, 2006 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This bill is a great idea. Pointing out the ludicrousness of the anti-gay-adoption position can only be a positive. The issue of adoption is before the country - to ignore it and just rail against the Republican bills won't work.
I wonder how long it will take the WH & the GOP to pretend to take this bill seriously. As soon as the right-wing spinning heads get ahold of this, it will be an issue that they pretend will matter - as in "Democrats are prejudiced against mainstream America" and all tha crap.
Do you remember the same thing happened with the mock Reinstate the Draft bill that was submitted by Charlie Rangel. Its hard to believe, but the Republican spinning heads actually claimed a victory on behalf of the American people by stopping it. They live in that mock world...I'm not sure this stuff affects them.
February 27, 2006 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
ejgraff says:
"My gut sense is that the effort to ban lesbians and gay men from being able to adopt won't get far; most Americans are just too sensible to let this happen, realizing that it would hurt kids."
This might be shocking to some, but Florida currently has such a ban in statutes. The following is the statute to which I am referring. See (3):
63.042 Who may be adopted; who may adopt.--
(1) Any person, a minor or an adult, may be adopted.
(2) The following persons may adopt:
(a) A husband and wife jointly;
(b) An unmarried adult; or
(c) A married person without the other spouse joining as a petitioner, if the person to be adopted is not his or her spouse, and if:
1. The other spouse is a parent of the person to be adopted and consents to the adoption; or
2. The failure of the other spouse to join in the petition or to consent to the adoption is excused by the court for good cause shown or in the best interest of the child.
(3) No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.
(4) No person eligible under this section shall be prohibited from adopting solely because such person possesses a physical disability or handicap, unless it is determined by the court or adoption entity that such disability or handicap renders such person incapable of serving as an effective parent.
So, in the state of Florida, a single, unmarried person may adopt, assuming that person is deemed fit by the state; however, a homosexual couple cannot, nor can a single homosexual person.
I haven't researched this enough to be able to tell you how the State determines sexual orientation of applicants. That's got to be extremely tricky.
That language has been in Florida statutes since 1977 and has been constitutionally challenged at least three times, to my knowledge, unsuccessfully. Of course, the Legislature could get rid of it at any time, opening possible adoption doors for many more of the thousands of children in foster care in this state at this time. But, I think it is unlikely to happen.
February 27, 2006 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I know about Florida's law. It's the worst in the country, and was recently upheld by the 11th circuit. That's why we have this new wave of states attempting to pass antigay adoption bills; Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel essentially announced that this would happen. There are a couple of other such statutes, although not as bad as Florida's nightmare. But I don't think this push has an enormous amount of traction. I could be wrong.
For more info on the LGBT strategy to undo the Florida law, see the article I posted a few days ago (a week ago?). Florida is one of the states being targeted for major changes.
February 27, 2006 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tlee,
I apologize for my careless comments above. I did not intend to say that international adoption is sad at all. I think it is a wonderful thing and I am so happy for my good friends who are bringing home their son from Russia in a few weeks. There are children all over the world who need loving homes and I hope they all get one.
My problem, which I did not convey well at all, is entirely different. I have a long term friend who is vehemently opposed to abortion, opposed to anything other than abstinence only sex education (because anything other than that is encouraging premarital sex, in her view) and thinks Rick Santorum is a hero (we live in PA). She also told me that she would never consider domestic adoption for various reasons which can be summarized as damaged kids and birth parents who change their minds. While those are valid concerns, it offends me that she is opposed to preventing unplanned pregnancy and completely unwilling to consider taking in a child whose birth parents can't or won't care for him or her.
Adoption isn't right for everyone and as tlee says, it must be considered thoughtfully and prayerfully. It is a difficult and expensive process. There are children all over the world who need loving homes and it seems sad to deny them that opportunity because their potential adoptive parents are gay (or anything else, white, black, green with spots, whatever). I think that if you can make it through the many hurdles to adopt, you should be allowed to do so.
I'm sorry if I offended you, tlee.
February 27, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Transgendered parents? You mean, there are people who think that an individual who mutilates thier genitals in an atempt to change sexes shouldn't raise kids??? Wow? I think slicing off your testicals and scrotum and splitting your penis in two and shoving it back inside to form a mangled faux vagina makes you totally stable, and you should be allowed to adopt. Who are these crazy people???
February 27, 2006 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dawn, you didn't offend. I apologize if I appeared to take offense too easily. This subject is close to my heart.
We wrestled with a lot of guilt about our decision to adopt internationally. After several hurtful and unsuccessful experiences with fertility drugs and surgeries, we began pursuing adoption. Our choices were many and hard. Infant vs. older child. Caucasian child (which we are) vs. a child of another race. Domestic vs. international. There are many choices we made about which we continue to feel guilt and remorse. I cannot say that what we did is the right path for everyone. Others could second-guess us. Ultimately, however, I know our path was best for us, and for our daughter, who, miraculously, is the perfect child for us.
I don't know what is best for your friend, Dawn. Our experience has firmly convinced me that anyone--anyone--with enough love in their heart to parent can, and should, adopt a child, and that government should bring families together, not keep them apart. After that, I can't say. Issues like these are complicated. What isn't complicated, however, is the joy in a safe and happy child's eyes, and the love that shines through them.
February 27, 2006 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goodness, but you are mean and unleasant. People who want to adopt have to go through arduous reviews and home studies with social workers and agencies. It is a difficult and expensive process. While I would think that a transgendered person would have an immensely difficult (if not impossible) time getting approved for an adoption, they have clearly also been through an arduous and difficult process just to be transgendered (don't they have to go through a long period of therapy and a long period of living as their new gender before they can get the surgery anyway?). It seems to me that your comment was just a cheap shot at people who deserve your sympathy (can you imagine feeling so out of place in your body?) rather than your scorn. Also, you are distracting from the real issue of depriving people of the opportunity to parent because of their sexual orientation or whatever other restrictive criteria.
February 27, 2006 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What isn't complicated, however, is the joy in a safe and happy child's eyes, and the love that shines through them.
I just wanted to draw attention to that phrase in the comment above. A safe and happy child is a loved child, and that has nothing to do with the details of his or her parentage, just the quality of it.
February 27, 2006 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever notice how people who make a point out of proclaiming they are political conservatives look really wierd?
I'm not sure how this might play into the ban, but it's got to mean something.
February 28, 2006 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
To Dawn....
Your absolutely right I am depriving certain people of the oppurtunity to parent because of their sexual orientation....I was wrong. I guess you feel the guys at NAMBLA should also be able to adopt kids. No? Why not? You wouldn't want to deprive a person of the oppurtunity to parent just because of their sexual orientation. and besides, who loves kids more than the guys at NAMBLA?
Also, you claim transgendered people go through lots of therapy before getting a sex change. They probably have to take a psyc test to make sure they are sane too.... So, what kind of test finds a person normal when they answer "YES" to the question "Do you hate yourself and feel like mutalating your body?"
February 28, 2006 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you mean like circumcision, breast enhancement or reduction, plastic surgery, etc.? How is surgery by a qualified, competent, board-certified surgeon "body mutilation"?
Well, maybe it is when Dr. Frist operates... after all, he thought he could diagnose a patient via video tape. Guess the autopsy report told a different story, huh?
February 28, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Circumcision is done when your very young, so you don't really have a choice in that. Please tell me how hacking off your cock and balls to create a "vagina" not self mutilation!!!!!!!
Feel free to respond to the NAMBLA part.........
March 1, 2006 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
A faith-based perspective, eh?
March 2, 2006 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink