Good year 2002 statement from AAP on why access to second parent adoption is important for children raised by gay/lesbian parents.
*This* is the child-centered route that advocates should be pursuing for children raised by gay/lesbian persons. It does not create more intentionally-fatherless or intentionally-motherless children (as in donor conception using third party donors) and it does not redefine marriage such that we are unable in law and social norms to say that children, the vast majority of whom are raised by heterosexuals, need their mother and father (as legalizing same sex marriage requires us to do).
Categories: Marriage, My Daddy's Name is Donor
What’s the incentive, for the LGBT community, for accepting this crumb of a solution? Yes, it’s child-centered . . . to a point. But it doesn’t change the situation for LGBT people or even parents, at least much.
Yes, it would be nice to have second-parent adoption to raise the children of failed heterosexual relationships. That’s a nice civil duty, although some states make even the initial adoption illegal.
But in exchange, the LGBT community need to accept second-class legal citizenship and give-up on the desire to have children with a biological connection.
Doesn’t sound like a win-win for anyone, really.
Elizabeth, what exactly happens to people in Massachusetts who claim that children need a mother and a father? Are they arrested? Are they fined? Do the police come and take their internet connection away? In what sense are they “unable” to say whatever they want?
For that matter, nothing legally prevents the Massachusetts congress from passing a declaration saying that, marriage laws nonewithstanding, the ideal arrangement for raising a child is two married, biological, heterosexual parents. The barrier to Massachusetts making such a declaration is political, not legal.
The poster creates a silly and unnecessary dichotomy. Many of the states that do permit second parent adoption for gay and lesbian couples also permit the marriage of same-sex couples. There is no contradiction here. Of course, all states should permit both second parent adoption and same-sex marriage. But some states, such as California and Washington state, for example, which do not permit same-sex marriage do in fact permit second parent adoption. The ideal situation, however, are states like Massachusetts in which second parent adoption and same-sex marriage are both permitted.
Right Jay. Marrying a single mom isn’t the same as adopting her child. That would have to be done separately, and could be done even without marrying (I don’t think states require that adoptive parents be married, nor should they). Usually the child already has a second parent.
Sorry, Peter, did I misunderstand? Are you saying that biology matters?
Amp, right now saying kids need their mother and father is a good way to lose friends and get labeled a bigot. So far they’re not arresting us.
So far they’re not arresting us.
Oh dear. Dramatic much.
Are you saying that biology matters?
Biology matters, but isn’t a trump card. Civil liberties matter. Equality matters. Lots of things matter.
But in exchange, the LGBT community need to accept second-class legal citizenship and give-up on the desire to have children with a biological connection.
You mean, a shared biological connection? I think if you gave up on the demand for children with a shared biological connection with someone of the same sex, in other words, gave up on the demand for same-sex conception rights, you could trade that for equal protections in all other areas, in the form of Civil Unions. Trying to claim an equal right to procreate with a man that you already have with a woman is just an impractical demand and sets us down a road fraught with dangers and risks.
gave up on the demand for same-sex conception rights, you could trade that for equal protections in all other areas, in the form of Civil Unions.
That’s not a compromise. A compromise would be “give up the demand for same-sex conception rights in exchange for legal marriage” or “agree to not limit access to medical treatment and advancement in exchange for taking civil unions.” Civil Unions are a Plessy v Ferguson accommodation, especially when you are taking away the right to make medical decisions and use medical advances to have children.
Those would also be compromises for you, in that you wouldn’t be getting all of your demands, but they are both unacceptable to me because the first one strips conception rights from marriage, and the second one allows unethical ways of creating people and also unconstitutionally uses a different name for the same rights.
My proposal is a compromise for you in that it withholds both the legal status of marriage and prohibits attempts at same-sex conception, but gives you all the protections and recognition that a married couple gets, except the right to conceive children together using the couples genes. It is acceptable to me because it preserves the right of all marriages to use their own genes to conceive children together, and stops (for as long as the law is in effect) attempts at creating humans by any means other than joining unmodified gametes from a man and a woman.
Keep in mind that it doesn’t decide the conception rights issue forever, it only separates that question from the other protections for the moment, while allowing the nation to decide the issue of same-sex conception on its own. If we then decide to allow same-sex conception, of course it then makes sense to turn the civil unions into marriages, since they will then have the same equal right to conceive together using their own genes. Meanwhile, same-sex couples could have federal recognition and uniform civil unions in more and more states as they enact them.
I think there is a huge value in prohibiting same-sex conception permanently, so I propose that, if we don’t decide to allow same-sex conception after our national conversation, we alternately enshrine the law prohibiting conception by any means other than joining a man and a woman’s genes in the US Constitution as the next Amendment, whatever that is.
But meanwhile, until we make that choice, we should move to the compromise position that gives equal protections in CU’s, preserves marriage, preserves natural conception rights, and holds off on same-sex conception.
Elizabeth wrote:
1) In other words, you’re able to say whatever you want; you just don’t want to be criticized for what you say. But no one has a right to freedom from criticism.
So, in order to be honest, you should stop claiming that if we have SSM that you and others will be “unable” to say whatever you want. That’s simply not true, and it’s not fair of you to repeatedly tar our side with the censorship brush when what you’re really objecting to is criticism, not censorship.
2) Banning same-sex couples from legally recognized marriage will make your “lose friends and get labeled a bigot” problem worst. The more successful you and your allies are at implementing SSM bans, the angrier people will be. Therefore, wanting to solve the “lose friends and get labeled a bigot” problem does not logically justify a ban on same-sex marriage.
3) More proof that banning same-sex marriage won’t prevent anti-SSM folks from being called bigots: come to Portland, Oregon, where SSM is banned, and make a public speech against legal SSM. I guarantee you’ll get protesters. In the US, criticism of SSM opponents isn’t strongly correlated with legal SSM; it’s primarily correlated with how liberal the population is.
4) For argument’s sake, though, let’s pretend that banning same-sex marriage would somehow solve your “lose friends and get labeled a bigot” problem. Even then, would it be worth it?
The emotional pain you’ve felt is, I’m sure, awful. Losing friends sucks, and so does being called a bigot (I’ve experienced both).
But it’s not more important than the pain suffered by tens of thousands of same-sex couples and their families who are denied full equality; and it’s not more important than the pain to hundreds of thousands of same-sex people who, if you get your way, won’t get to grow up with a vision of themselves someday being able to marry and make family of their own.
Peter, “arrested” was ampersand’s word.
I think we might agree. I also think biology matters for LGBT’s who want to have their “own” children. But I also think the rights of donor conceived persons to know their origins and their equality as full citizens who should not be uniquely denied knowledge of these origins or social sympathy for their loss matters more.
we should move to the compromise position that gives equal protections in CU’s, preserves marriage, preserves natural conception rights, and holds off on same-sex conception.
IOW, a lose, lose, lose, lose for the people you want to work with.
I also think the rights of donor conceived persons to know their origins and their equality as full citizens who should not be uniquely denied knowledge of these origins or social sympathy for their loss matters more.
Would you move to legally end divorce because of the existential pain it causes the children caught up in the divorce. Would you move to ban closed adoption because of the existential pain created by being denied the right “to know their origins and their equality as full citizens who should not be uniquely denied knowledge of these origins or social sympathy for their loss.”
Peter, the win for you is equal protections, including federal recognition. The lack of federal recognition and spotty recognition in so many states is what thousands of same-sex couples and their families are suffering from right now. The losses to you are hardly losses, since no same-sex couple has an equal marriage right now and no one has the ability to do same-sex conception right now. And the ban is not even permanent, if you are able to convince Congress to repeal the law that would ban on same-sex conception. It just brings that practice under Congressional oversight.
Peter:
Banning divorce? That’s a hard one. It’s a tricky balance to get right. I wouldn’t ban it but it needs to become less common, hopefully more through education and understanding than legal enforcement.
Banning closed adoptions? Of course yes! They’re unspeakably wrong.
Peter: I spent eight years thinking hard about divorce. I don’t argue for a “ban” on divorce, but my book Between Two Worlds would I hope help parents understand what their “good enough” marriage is doing for their kids and encourage them to seek help and stick together.
On adoption, the thing is, I do believe there is at least an argument for why birth mothers should be able to have a guarantee of privacy if they want to relinquish a child they feel they cannot raise and move on with their lives — particularly if one is concerned about abortion, because an assurance of privacy might help her to decide to bring the pregnancy to term rather than terminate. (I do support legal access to early abortion but like everyone I would like there to be less of it.) These points I think at least are in tension with the right of the adoptee to know his or her origins. I don’t pretend to have the perfect solution to all that, and I am definitely sensitive to what Tom says about closed adoption.
The other point though is that adoption is a compensatory institution. No one sets out to conceive an adopted child. Adoption happens as a response to human frailty of some kind. Draconian solutions are rarely the answer, especially in these cases, and especially in the free society in which we are very fortunate to live.
Yes, of course, second-parent adoption should be universal. In our family, my husband first adopted our son, then I had to file for adoption. It was very important for both of us to be parents of our son and for our son to have two parents. However, second-parent adoption is NOT a substitute for marriage. As for civil unions, I am very suspicious of people who claim to be against marriage but for civil unions. As we have seen over and over again, the same people who fight against marriage equality also fight against civil unions. Although Washington State retained its domestic partnership law after a referendum, that referendum was enormously expensive and 47% of the people voted against it. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a civil union law, and Republicans all voted against it and are now lobbying for the Governor to veto it. I think people who claim to be for civil unions just do that so they don’t appear quite as bigoted as they really are. I suspect that if they had their druthers, they would deny gay people–especially gay couples–all rights.
If a man is raising his son with the help of his sister, would it be wise for the sister to adopt her nephew? Is that allowed, where second-parent adoption is allowed? How do a married couple adopt, do they just adopt as a marriage, or do they each adopt separately?
John Howard: your response to the other thread where you were telling what (you think) SHOULD happen to my marriage shows just how arrogant you are.
I don’t know the answer to the question re the sister and nephew. Adoption regulations vary from state to state. Many states do not permit second parent adoptions, at least for same-sex couples. In my state, they are permitted. In our case, my husband adopted our son because we were not permitted to adopt him jointly. But after that adoption was completed, I was able to apply for a second-parent adoption, which was granted. We live in a liberal university town. I suspect because of that the process was easier than it might have been in a homophobic area.
Ah, so my comment in the other thread was the 30th comment, which appears to be all a thread is allowed. Thank you for responding to it here.
First I’ll copy Tom’s comment to you from that thread which prompted my comment. Tom wrote: “Well I think it’s terrible that an existing marriage could be invalidated and you have my sympathies.”
I wanted to agree that having your marriage simply “invalidated” was not the right option, it should be converted into a Civil Union with all the rights of marriage except for the right to conceive together, and federally recognized as marriage. I am sorry you think it is arrogant of me to think we should stop genetic engineering and same-sex conception and preserve marriage and equal conception rights. Apparently you think it is arrogant because you think you should be allowed to do whatever you want. Who is being arrogant?
John Howard: I think your handing down fiats as to what should be done to my marriage is arrogant because wtf do you think you are? It is bigotry to consign gay people to second-class citizenship in this country. I am hopeful that ultimately the SCOTUS will have to live up to the idea that we are a country where everyone has equal rights and equal protection under the law.
Prohibiting genetic engineering and same-sex procreation is not consigning gay people to second class citizenship, because they still have the very same rights as everyone: to conceive naturally, with their own gametes, with someone of the other sex. And straight people would also prohibited from procreating with modified gametes, and forced to procreate with someone of the other sex.
It’s silly to demand a right to conceive with someone of the same-sex when it can’t even be done and probably never will be possible or available. Especially when agreeing to drop the demand for procreation rights would enable a compromise that would give equal protections to thousands of couples and their families. And especially when the compromise needn’t even be permanent, if the country decides to allow same-sex procreation someday and convert CU’s into marriages again.
Besides having federal recognition and uniform recognition in more states, you wouldn’t notice any other differences if your marriage was technically a Civil Union, you would still call it a marriage, check the boxes for “married”, have every law or regulation that applies to marriage apply to you, it would be exactly like marriage except officially, legally, it wouldn’t be, because marriage needs to continue to protect the couple’s right to use their own genes to conceive children, and same-sex couples wouldn’t have that right.
Using your logic, Jim Crow laws weren’t really consigning Black people to second-class citizenship either. After all, the water in the Colored fountains was the same as the water in the Whites Only fountains.
You got it backwards, Jay. You’re the one saying that gay people need whole new fountains built for gay people to use, with very different genetically modified water in them, and should do something no human – no animal – has ever done before, instead of using the same fountains and the same water everyone uses and procreating the same way everyone else procreates.
Where do you see separate fountains in my compromise? Do you feel any rules are being applied differently to different people?
Is it really a shock to you that gay couples aren’t able to procreate? You really are expecting to be allowed to procreate with a man?
Note that these Civil Unions would be available to other types of couples that are prohibited from marrying/procreating, like two straight siblings, for example. The civil union wouldn’t give them conception rights, so it wouldn’t make it legal for them to have intercourse together, but it would give them security if they are raising a child together, for example.
You are real good at forbidding people from doing things. I am afraid that history is not on your side.
I’m only asking for Congress to decide whether to forbid it, which obviously implies a national conversation. Other countries have forbidden it, like Germany and England, where same-sex couples have full recognition in Civil Partnerships.
And meanwhile, while we wait for Congress to study it, we should enact the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise. That way same-sex couples immediately get federal recognition and consistent civil unions that are marriage except for conception rights.
And if Congress ever decides same-sex procreation is safe and ethical and should be allowed, then the CU’s would be changed to marriages.
John, your tone was very direct and you stated outright what “should” happen to Jay’s marriage. Remember that Jay is a human being too please, helping us to understand his point of view.
John Howard, I assume that while you are handing down edicts you will also invalidate the marriages of all heterosexual couples who have not produced offspring “naturally” and forbid the infertile or those who do not want children from marrying as well.