U NITED States District Judge James L. King made the proper decision last week when he upheld the Florida law banning homosexual adoption of children. King wrote in his opinion that "at the least, it is arguable that placing children in married homes is in the best interest of Florida's children." The homosexual plaintiffs in the case could not make a convincing argument that homosexual couples have the right to adopt children.
The burden of proof in this case was on the homosexuals attempting to overturn the Florida law instated in 1977. The plaintiffs were not able to make several points that were necessary to establish a positive right to adoption by homosexual families. King stated that the plaintiffs trying to overturn the law did not seek to show that homosexual couples are "equivalently stable, are able to provide proper gender identification or are no more socially stigmatizing than married heterosexual families." Because the plaintiffs could not or would not make these claims, King reaffirmed the longstanding Florida law.
Gay marriage is not legally sanctioned in the state of Florida at this time. This led the judge to question the stability of an adopted child in a homosexual family. Although the state sanction of a union does not guarantee its permanence, the current absence of that legal sanction for homosexual unions does not support the argument in favor of homosexual adoption of children. The stability of the family unit is one of the primary considerations in allowing a family to adopt a child, and the homosexual plaintiffs did not even attempt to show that a homosexual union provides a secure family environment.
King also worried about the ramifications of social alienation that might be encountered by children adopted by a homosexual family. Because of the so-called sexual orientation stereotypes in our society, it is very possible that the children of homosexual families could experience criticism and rejection by other children their own age who come from heterosexual families. The homosexuals obviously could not make the argument that their adopted children definitely would not experience discrimination or rejection by other children.
The most controversial part of King's opinion concerns his reference to "proper gender identification." The judge appears to be referring to the natural advantages of having both a male and female parent involved in the life of a child. Access to persons of both genders is ideal in the development of a child. The absence of one gender in the adoptive family, or rather, the presence of only one gender in the adopting couple, denies adopted children the interaction with parents of both genders.
Lesbian activist Camille Paglia states what is common sense to most people: "Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm... Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction... No one is born gay ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait." Nature designed procreation in such a way that a child is the product of a relationship between a male and a female. Why should we not assume that nature did not also intend for that child to be brought up by a male and a female?
It would be presumptuous to claim that nature intended for offspring to be raised in a family consisting of only two males or two females. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish that they have the right to adopt children into their homosexual families.
We see in nature that a family comes into being when a male and a female reproduce. In an ideal world, children always would be raised by their biological parents. Unfortunately, the circumstances leading to the necessity for adoption make that ideal impossible. Nevertheless it is best to keep to the same game plan. Homosexuals will argue that a two parent homosexual household is surely better than a single parent household. We should attempt to give the children of single parent households access to mentoring from people of both genders. Children have a natural desire and need for the attentions of both a male and a female parent, and we should ensure that these innate desires are fulfilled.
(Benjamin Aaron Beliles is a third-year College student. He is president of the Jefferson Leadership Foundation, which provides a forum for discussion of conservative issues. )
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 20 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
