The state Supreme Court is on the verge of making a decision
that will either extend or deny basic civil rights to thousands of
Californians. The court must uphold adoptions for gay, lesbian and
other non-married couples.
The case in consideration involves two women, referred to in
court as Sharon S. and Annette F., and two children Sharon gave
birth to via artificial insemination. After the first child was
born, Annette, who had been Sharon’s partner for 10 years,
legally adopted him and the two had joint custody. Adoption
proceedings had begun for Sharon’s second child when the
couple split up.
Annette says she still has a right to adopt the second child
with Sharon, since Sharon failed to withdraw her consent to the
adoption by a set deadline, but Sharon is arguing for sole
custody.
The case, though, has much broader impact than who gets custody
of the second child. Considering Sharon’s case, a lower court
in San Diego ruled that so-called second-parent adoptions
““Â a widely used practice, in which a single parent can
put up a child for adoption and maintain custody along with the
second individual who adopts the child ““Â were never
legal under California law.
If the Court does not reverse that ruling, thousands of
adoptions could be made void and many gay men and women would lose
their children. Also, future couples interested in adopting a child
could be turned away.
Though second-parent adoptions do not only apply to gay parents,
the case against such arrangements reeks of homophobia, since such
adoptions are the only way for a gay couple to legally share
custody over a child ““Â since they are the only way for
gay couples to have a family.
Of course, some would argue that gay people should not be
permitted to start a family. They say homosexuality is
immoral, that the kids will be more likely to turn out gay, and the
children will be ostracized in school.
Such arguments are ridiculous.
There is nothing at all immoral about any loving couple ““
regardless of sexual orientation ““Â wanting to provide a
home for a child. Those who oppose gay adoption should consider the
sad consequences and the morality involved in denying children
a home in which to grow up.
Furthermore, the idea that a child will be more likely to turn
out gay if he is raised in a gay household has no scientific or
imperial data to back it up. The idea is just the creation of
bigots who are afraid of people who love someone of the same
sex.
Finally, while it is true that children in adopted families may
endure some abuse while in school as they grow up, it is a terrible
argument to suggest that the way to combat homophobia is to avoid
it at all times. Any time the gay community makes advancements in
society they will have to deal with people not ready for those
advancements.
And anyone who suggests that children are better off in no home,
rather than a gay home, should check to make sure he or she is
really looking out for the children.
Last year TenPercent, UCLA’s LGBT student news magazine,
reported on Chris Caldwell and Richard Llewellyn, two of the first
California men to use second-parent adoption when they adopted twin
babies from Peru.
Anyone who would argue against exposing children to a gay
household should listen to Rosie, one of the twins the couple
adopted, when she told TenPercent, “There are other people
who have two dads or two moms or only one dad. Some people
don’t even live with their dad. We’re not all that
different.”