A LOT OF people will argue about the qualities of a good parent, and now riding the celebrity coattails of Rosie O'Donnell's public acknowledgement of her homosexuality, the issue of gay adoptions has received heightened attention. Some state governments prohibit adoption while permitting foster care by prospective gay parents. In a time when so many children lack a family and home to call their own, the states must purge themselves of their contradictory backward ideals, and allow any person who can provide a stable loving environment for a child to adopt, regardless of their sexuality.
O'Donnell's crusade for the rights of gay parents began after learning of two men attempting to overturn Florida's ban on gay adoptions by suing the state. Florida currently is the only state specifically banning adoptions by homosexuals. Two other states, however, also have an essentially identical law in place using somewhat less particular language; both Mississippi and Utah do not allow same-sex couples to adopt. On the other hand, 19 states and the District of Columbia provide for the other member of a same-sex couple to legally adopt their partner's child.
While states possess the right to decide which people have the means and necessary characteristics to become adoptive parents, eliminating potentially suitable guardians on the basis of their sexuality is unwarranted. Through their laws,the governments of Florida, Mississippi and Utah unjustly impose their views of morality on a select population. They seek to create the ultimate definition of a family without taking into account different circumstances that, although deviating from what is perceived as normal, may provide in the end the same positive upbringing for children as a heterosexual couple.
Ironically, Florida allows homosexuals to be foster parents and yet stops short of letting them adopt. The state is more than willing to take advantage of eager caretakers until a more satisfactory home is found. It has no objections to housing children with people whose values are repugnant to those of state legislators - so long as it's only on a temporary basis.
Florida's policy is inconsistent. Children may stay with their foster parents for several years at a time - even until the age of 18, when they become legally responsible for themselves. Should children indeed be at risk for emotional, psychological and sexual danger as a result of their adoption by homosexual parents, some would assume that staying with gay individuals for any amount of time greatly increases potential harm to them. The real damage, though, is that adults who have cared for a child cannot provide him or her with real continuity, which most foster children lack in the first place.
Florida is not the only state to have such contrary laws on the books. According to CNN, until late 1997, New Jersey allowed homosexual couples to jointly take in foster children, but not adopt them. As a result of a class-action lawsuit, however, state courts overturned the policy, and New Jersey became the first state to treat homosexual couples the same as their heterosexual counterparts during the adoption process.
Legislators and critics of gay adoption also must learn to give kids a little more credit. Children are among the most tolerant and flexible people around. Just because a child might be raised by gay parents does not mean they'll turn out dysfunctional or choose a homosexual lifestyle for themselves.
Other opponents - self-affirmed family rights activists - claim that by growing up in a household where both parents are the same sex, children fail to really experience and understand the male-female ñmarriage relationship, thus damaging their healthy development and maturation. This argument does not recognize the overall prevalence of heterosexual relationships in society. A child raised by gay parents would in no way lack exposure to other types of families through the media, their peers and even their parents' friends.
|
In addition, critics of gay adoptions put themselves in a sticky situation by opposing same-sex couples for an absence of the opposite gender. Millions of single parents raise children in America - these kids often live with one dominant parent whether it be the mother or the father. Over the past several decades, the idea of a single parent - including adoptive parents - has become a social norm. A child should no more be denied a home because his new family might consist of two moms or two dads than he should if he only lived with one or the other.
It's time for state legislators and the American people to reexamine their outdated and biased idea of the typical family, especially since no one situation comes close to encompassing the majority of homes in this country. Children, however, learn to thrive in the situation into which they are born and raised, whether it be that of a man and a woman or any combination thereof. Too many kids don't have anyone to love them, and if a person or couple - any couple - wants to open their arms to a child, so be it. We can't let old-fashioned ideas get in the way of new era families.
(Becky Krystal is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. She can be reached at bkrystal@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe 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 | 2 days agoAfter 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.
