Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A state court in Florida has ruled that Florida's ban on adoption by gays violates the state constitution.
A Monroe Circuit Court judge has ruled Florida's 31-year-old gay adoption ban ''unconstitutional'' in an order that allows an openly gay Key West foster parent to adopt a teenage boy he has raised since 2001.Declaring the adoption to be in the boy's ''best interest,'' Circuit Judge David J. Audlin Jr. said the Florida law forbidding gay people from adopting children is contrary to the state Constitution because it singles out a group for punishment.
The facts of the case are interesting:
At the heart of the Monroe case is a 13-year-old boy with learning disabilities and special needs who has lived in his Key West foster father's two-story home since the Department of Children & Families placed him there in 2001. The boy is identified as John Doe. The father, 52, is not identified.Audlin appointed the foster father as guardian for the boy in 2006. At a recent hearing, the boy testified he wanted the man to be his ''forever father'' -- like all the other kids had -- ''because I love him,'' the order says.
A home study by a social worker ''highly'' recommended the guardian and his partner be allowed to adopt the boy, saying the two men provided a ''loving and nurturing home,'' provided ''fair and consistent'' discipline and are financially secure, the order says.
The ruling is not yet published, but here are some details:
In the ruling, the judge noted that the statute was passed by lawmakers in 1977 amid a politically charged campaign to, as one lawmaker at the time put it, send gay people ''back into the closet.'' Audin said the law violates the Constitution's separation of powers by preventing family court and child welfare judges from deciding case-by-case what is best for a child.''Contrary to every child welfare principle,'' Audlin wrote, ''the gay adoption ban operates as a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that . . . it is never in the best interest of any adoptee to be adopted by a homosexual,'' Audlin wrote.
This has happened before. A state court in 1991 ruled the law unconstitutional but the state Supreme Court overturned that decision. The Florida Supreme Court is considerably more liberal now than before, so maybe this time it'll stick.
Politics
Comments
I'm sure that the blogs favorite gay basher, Mr. mroberts will be along to rant and rail about activist judges.
Posted by: SLC | September 11, 2008 9:26 AM
Looks like we've finally disposed of one more piece of the chain that was created by Anita Bryant. Strike another blow against theocracy!
Posted by: Lisa D | September 11, 2008 9:30 AM
Ed:
Are you watching the weather channel. I'll bet that Ike is making a hard right turn as we speak. That decision was made in Tallahassee, right? Well, it's along ways inland but I'm sure that GOD can manage it.
Posted by: democommie | September 11, 2008 9:46 AM
This is a great ruling but what's kind of disappointing is that none of the conservative bloggers have picked up on this. They are all still stuck on pigs and fashion accessories. Even the AFA has been silent - all I got this morning was an offer for a free bible.
Posted by: yoshi | September 11, 2008 10:06 AM
You mean that AFTAH's LaBarbera hasn't picked this up with a hysterical screed about how cowardly politicians are kowtow to the radical homosexual elite? And, of course, how the children will be harmed as a consequence--using statistics and studies that are either 30 years out of date, or have been discredited.
Give 'em time.
Posted by: gary l. day | September 11, 2008 10:58 AM
Those damn "activist judges" interpreting the constitution in a way that protects and ensures people's civil liberties.
Why can't they just see that removing the child from those two "supposedly" devoted "partners" is in the best interest of the larger concept of a "traditional family"? I mean, no one else is volunteering to take care of the kid, so why should two homosexuals allowed to do it?
[/sarcasm]
Posted by: Umlud | September 11, 2008 10:58 AM
Umlud--sadly, these religious rightists WOULD rather a kid be raised in an institution, or stay with abusive parents, or be on the street than to be raised in a loving gay household. Apparently running with a gang, hawking drugs and engaging in shoot-outs, is preferable and more moral than being raised by two parents of the same sex. You wouldn't want the kid growing up believing that homosexuality was acceptable, would you?
Posted by: gary l. day | September 11, 2008 11:40 AM
I'll bet that Ike is making a hard right turn as we speak.
Interestingly, the projections I've seen do have Ike (well, the remnants thereof) pulling right after landfall. I guess God foresaw the need to hit Florida, but was omnisciently slow on the trigger.
Posted by: schism | September 11, 2008 11:52 AM
schism:
I don't got me no teevee, and it's sunny here in upstate NY, so I think GOD loves me in more ways than one.
Posted by: democommie | September 11, 2008 12:51 PM
Wait, so the district judge is claiming the law is unconstitutional since it restricts the power of the courts to act as judiciaries?
As an aside, couldn't/shouldn't this be argued as well for mandatory sentences of any kind? Just curious/throwing a bone out/opening dialogue.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | September 11, 2008 4:53 PM
As an aside, couldn't/shouldn't this be argued as well for mandatory sentences of any kind?
Not really...the argument is based on the right of the child to whichever living arrangement is in his best interests. The law is depriving him of that right and is therefore unconsititutional.
A person who's convicted of a crime doesn't have the right to receive the sentence that's in his best interest. The only constitutional safeguard is that the minimum sentence can't be cruel or unusual punishment, but the courts have been interpreting that pretty narrowly.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | September 11, 2008 7:24 PM
This is great news all around, and especially for that young man. To not allow them to adopt him would have been a travesty. Plus, I spent two years of HS living in Key West, (Stock Island) and I loved it. That was over 30 years ago; I wonder if it's changed any?
Posted by: trog69 | September 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Ha! This is wonderful. I'm especially happy for the kid, if he had been removed from a good home and parents who love him (and he love in return) it would be a huge blow to him and he would possibly have a huge amount of trouble adapting.
Posted by: Zan | September 11, 2008 10:18 PM
Ah, but you see, Zan, if he were removed from parents he loved, he would still have Jesus!
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 12, 2008 4:42 AM
Umlud--sadly, these religious rightists WOULD rather a kid be raised in an institution, or stay with abusive parents, or be on the street than to be raised in a loving gay household. Apparently running with a gang, hawking drugs and engaging in shoot-outs, is preferable and more moral than being raised by two parents of the same sex.
Really gary? I would love to see names and links for "religious rightists" that advocated for the kid to be raised with abusive parents or on the street.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 1:48 PM
mroberts - do you support gay partners in a stable relationship adopting children?
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2008 2:15 PM
mroberts - do you support gay partners in a stable relationship adopting children?
No.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 2:27 PM
SLC:
It took a lot longer than you thought it would for mroberts to come in with his KKKristian logic.
I was hoping he'd misread the header as "Florida Gay Adoption VAN Overturned" and come on the thread saying it was an "act of GOD.!"
Posted by: democommie | September 12, 2008 2:28 PM
It took a lot longer than you thought it would for mroberts to come in with his KKKristian logic.
"KKKristian", huh? Wow, your post truly is an inspiring display of intellect, logic, and thoughtful consideration of the issues.
Apparently, stupid insults constitute the highest form of argument for some people.
Demo, you are consistently in the ranks of the most absurd and ridiculous posters on this blog - along with SLC.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 2:40 PM
mrroberts,
Given you do not support kids getting adopted by parents who happen to be gay, how you make arguments that social conservatives do care about orphan's best interests like you inferred in a previous post?
Given that there is no research showing gay parents are worse parents than heterosexuals, while there is evidence they are every bit as good and being gay isn't even a determining factor - education level and socio-economic class are; why would you support a policy that prevents more children from being adopted?
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2008 2:47 PM
Given that there is no research showing gay parents are worse parents than heterosexuals, while there is evidence they are every bit as good and being gay isn't even a determining factor - education level and socio-economic class are; why would you support a policy that prevents more children from being adopted
Michael, a gay couple cannot provide for a child what a hetero couple can. If two men adopt a baby, who is going to do the breast feeding? Maybe that sounds like a goofy question, but it highlights the fact that two men cannot provide for a child what a man and a woman can. We should be advocating only what is best for a child, not what is second best. That is why I don't support gay adoptions. I am not saying gays are automatically bad parents, I am saying that a child in a gay household is getting second best instead of the best overall.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 2:52 PM
Michael, a gay couple cannot provide for a child what a hetero couple can.
The ONLY example you provide is breast-feeding -- which a lot of mothers don't or can't do. So as a reason not to allow gay adoption, that's just laughably pathetic. (Do kids in an orphanage get breast-fed?) Admit the obvious: you hate teh ghey, and you're getting more desperate every day to find an excuse to keep them from raising kids.
We should be advocating only what is best for a child, not what is second best.
What if "second best" is all that's available? This may not be apparent to simpleminded ideologues like you, but there are BILLIONS of families -- some gay, but mostly straight -- that are nowhere near anyone's ideal child-rearing environment. You know, sick parents, uneducated parents, weird parents or other relatives, absent parents, living in poor, high-crime, or war zones, lousy schools, corrupt societies, disease, that sort of thing. Pretending gay adoption is unacceptable because it's not "the best" is just plain stupid.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2008 3:11 PM
Admit the obvious: you hate teh ghey, and you're getting more desperate every day to find an excuse to keep them from raising kids.
Yeah, that's it Bee. Way to turn a rational conversation into a stupid and brainless insult fest. Bee, I have a lot of patience, but your endless spewing and irrationality really get tiresome. With Bee, one can forget rational discussion. Bee always reduces an argument to shrill accusations of hatred and bigotry. Way to demonstrate your deep consideration and thoughtfulness about the issues, Bee. You are as shrill and annoying as they get.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 3:19 PM
Raging Bee: The ONLY example you provide is breast-feeding -- which a lot of mothers don't or can't do.
Strangely consistent with the absurd reasoning against gay marriage: "Gays can't be married because they can't have kids."
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 12, 2008 3:24 PM
mroberts' last "response" is typical of the ignorant coward who has just lost an argument: ignore all substantive refutations, and pretend name-callng is the only response you ever got. Anyone who actually reads the posts here will see you're lying.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2008 3:25 PM
Oh, and what about lesbian couples? They can do TWICE as much breast-feeding as straight couples, so doesn't that make them BETTER than straight couples?
Poor mroberts -- he can't even do better than me in breast-fixation, let alone rational argument.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 12, 2008 3:30 PM
Actually mrroberts avoided my question using a standard conservative talking point that remains a logical fallacy relative to reality, i.e., # orphans > # of parents willing to adopt them. So I'll reword my question, he remains a slippery fella. :)
mroberts - if an adoption agency has a gay couple with excellent credentials looking to adopt an orphan, would the child be better off remaining an orphan or being adopted by the gay couple?
BTW - parents bring other factors to the table as well. Orphans are often weaned for example. If I were an eight year orphan kid or a forty-eight year old father looking back at my youth, I'd much rather be adopted by two gay Jewish parents from NYC, both professionals, each with Ivy League graduate degrees than two creationist working class Pentacostals from a small town in Mississippi committed to home-schooling, if these were the only known factors.
In fact, if you're going to take mroberts argument to its logical conclusion given the research which he ignored,gays should be able to adopt, as should heterosexual couples, but only if they meet the conditions that determine a higher probability of success as an adopted parent, since my gay couple clearly meet that bar while my Miss. couple do not, the Miss. couple should be barred from adopting. I do not make this policy argument; I am merely pointing out the absurdity of it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 12, 2008 4:05 PM
mroberts -
Michael, a gay couple cannot provide for a child what a hetero couple can. If two men adopt a baby, who is going to do the breast feeding?
By that logic, my nine month old should have been placed in a different home. You see, unlike his older brother who was breast fed by my partner and refused to even look at bottles, the nine month old is not. Due to complications with the delivery, my partner was unable to breast feed initially and it just never got flowing because of that. So we have formula fed him all the way along.
OTOH, some of my son's best friends are being raised by gay couples. Two of the couples in particular, are parents that momma and I look up to - the kind of parents we wish we could be (we do our best for our kids, but could do much better.
Rich and Michael are the proud parents of two special needs children, one of whom is mid-functional autistic. They have totally devoted their lives to taking care of these kids and taking exceptionally good care of them. The children they adopted were labeled unadoptable (meaning they are unlikely to ever be adopted) by Oregon DHS. And it is highly unlikely they would have ended up in loving caring homes, were it not for Rich and Michael.
Alex and Miko, otoh, ended up with their kids, when Alex's sister (a single mom) ended up in an institution because of a suicide attempt that left her with significant loss of brain function. She had dropped the kids off with Alex before she tried to kill herself - they've been in his (and last year his partner's) guardianship ever since. They are soon to be adopted by the recently civilly joined couple.
The oldest of their three, was born clean, but his sisters were both born addicted to crack. The youngest (three) has reduced neurological function, mostly retarding speech function.
Bee -
...weird parents or other relatives, absent parents, living in poor, high-crime, or war zones,...
Hey now, while I am not the worlds greatest dad, I do pretty well for my boys. And I (momma too) am really weird (Ed can attest) and living in a poor, high crime neighborhood, that occasionally resembles a war zone:)
Posted by: DuWayne | September 12, 2008 4:27 PM
mroberts' last "response" is typical of the ignorant coward who has just lost an argument: ignore all substantive refutations, and pretend name-callng is the only response you ever got.
Bee, name-calling IS about all I get. Whatever else you post is almost not even coherent. On many topics, but particularly this one, your logical, well-reasoned, thoughtful arguments (sarcasm intended) are usually composed of name-calling and accusations of hatred and bigotry. Sorry, but accusing somebody of being a bigot does NOTHING to reinforce your position.
Oh by the way, did you ever post the list of books that I asked for months ago now? You seem to think you are so knowledgeable about everything, so I would love to know where you acquired all your extensive knowledge.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 5:29 PM
Look guys, for some reason your posts always point out how great parents gay people are. Yes, I'M NOT SAYING GAY PEOPLE ARE BAD PARENTS. Can you please reread that again and again until you understand that I'M NOT SAYING GAY PEOPLE ARE BAD PARENTS? DuWayne mentioned the guys he knows that are good parents. Great DuWayne, I get it. However, would you not argue that a mom and a dad, loving and committed to one another, are BETTER? Is not the ideal scenario a committed mom and a dad in a loving marriage? And for the record, for every great example of good gay parenting, I probably could give you examples of bad gay parenting. My next door neighbors - a lesbian couple - appear to be lousy parents. The poor kids are shuffled back and forth between 3 different homes. We should be encouraging the best possible home structure for children, not second best. If there are more children available for adoption than committed, hetero parents, then policies need to be enacted to get more committed hetero couples to adopt.
Besides, I hardly think that the movement to enact gay adoption was born out of a desire to provide what is best for kids. To me it appears that the whole gay adoption thing came about because of political correctness. If our society was really that concerned with how gay adoptions would impact kids, there would have been extensive and long-running studies and discussions on it before it became policy.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 5:42 PM
mroberts -
However, would you not argue that a mom and a dad, loving and committed to one another, are BETTER?
Honestly, both of the couples I mentioned are better parents than my partner and I. We are very much a loving and committed couple. We do everything we can to be the best parents we can be. And we do pretty good by our kids. But quite honestly, my kids would have been better off, having either of those couples as parents. Not that we are "bad" parents, just that they are better.
And for the record, for every great example of good gay parenting, I probably could give you examples of bad gay parenting.
And for every great example of good hetero parenting, I could give you four or five examples of really shitty hetero parenting. Being a shit isn't limited to gay or straight people. There are assholes in every walk of life.
My next door neighbors - a lesbian couple - appear to be lousy parents. The poor kids are shuffled back and forth between 3 different homes.
I know a lot of hetero couples who put their kids in similar situations. My apartment manager's kids live with her mom most of the time and every other weekend is either mom or dad - dad's a fulltime drunk, mom's a recovering substance abuser who regularly relapses - though she is trying.
Besides, I hardly think that the movement to enact gay adoption was born out of a desire to provide what is best for kids. To me it appears that the whole gay adoption thing came about because of political correctness.
No. Actually it was born of the notion that many gay families felt that they could provide loving homes for kids. Early on, it was generally pushed by parents who had discovered their homosexuality after reproducing and wanted their partners to be legally the parent of their child. Still is, but now includes a great number of gay families who chose to adopt together.
If our society was really that concerned with how gay adoptions would impact kids, there would have been extensive and long-running studies and discussions on it before it became policy.
And you know what? The conversation has been going on for decades, as have studies tracking gay led families. Unfortunately, the best studies are out of Sweden and Denmark, where gays have been raising kids the longest. They look good for gay parenting, but there are cultural differences that may insert some bias into the studies or make them otherwise inapplicable in the U.S. Studies out of the U.S. are just too limited to be very useful. But we're getting there, mainly because in many states it is legal for gays to adopt, while in many others, it is legal for them to be foster parents.
The other flaw that is virtually impossible to get past, is that currently it is a lot of work for gays to have kids to raise. It takes a lot of work to adopt and folks who decide to do so, don't do it on a whim. So the gay parents out there, generally have a very strong desire to raise kids, can't accidentally reproduce and thus put a inherent bias into studies. So the studies that have been done, tend to make gays look like much better parents overall, than a larger segment of the gay population would actually be.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 12, 2008 6:03 PM
And for every great example of good hetero parenting, I could give you four or five examples of really shitty hetero parenting. Being a shit isn't limited to gay or straight people. There are assholes in every walk of life.
Absolutely, that's why the "well the gay people down the street are great parents" argument is just stupid. There are nice people and complete idiots everywhere (can't wait for Raging Bee to seize on that and insult me with it). Just because one gay couple makes great parents does not automatically mean that gay adoption is good public policy.
The other flaw that is virtually impossible to get past, is that currently it is a lot of work for gays to have kids to raise. It takes a lot of work to adopt and folks who decide to do so, don't do it on a whim. So the gay parents out there, generally have a very strong desire to raise kids, can't accidentally reproduce and thus put a inherent bias into studies. So the studies that have been done, tend to make gays look like much better parents overall, than a larger segment of the gay population would actually be.
Sounds like a fair, objective assessment. One thing that has always bothered me about this issue is how gay adoption policies are enacted first and the proponents then demand opponents to prove why it would be bad. Seems to me we need to study policy changes first, figure out the impact, THEN enact it if it make sense. The burden of proof ought to be on those who are asking for the change, not those who are trying to preserve what has been the accepted norm for centuries.
And for the record, despite Bee's constant accusations that I harbor this deep bigotry and hatred for gays, there are other people I don't think should be adopting either. People younger than their mid twenties should not be adopting, nor single people. That is not a dig against single parents - who often are making due with difficult circumstances. Nor am I saying that single people are bad parents. I just think that as a matter of policy, we need to be putting kids in two parent, mom-and-dad homes because that is the ideal. Cohabiting couples also should not be adopting because stats show that cohabitation situations have much higher risks for child and sexual abuse. I also think income requirements are reasonable to insure that the couple can afford to raise the child.
By Raging Bee's logic, this probably means that I hate young, single, cohabiting, and poor people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The bottom line is that I believe as a matter of policy we should be putting kids in the BEST possible situation: a committed, married, mom and dad.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 6:28 PM
mrroberts: Excuse me if I am misinterpreting you, but you seem to be agreeing with the decision now that you have admitted that all iterations of parents have both good and poor practitioners and all parents are poor at something. Couple this with the actual holding in the decision (that the "best interest of the child" element outweighs the "no homosexuals can adopt" element) and I'm not sure how your argument that "a mother and father together make the ideal parenting unit" is anything more than an ideal.
We don't base public policy on ideals, but rather on the reality that is being faced. It is the same problem as abstinance-only education: It's great as long as none of the kids are tempted to try sex. Since most of them do, the ideal in this case is at best a waste of resources, at worst putting kids in actual danger.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 12, 2008 6:47 PM
Further, mrroberts, you would have to take the position that in this particular case it would be best for the child to be taken from the loving home he has lived in for years so that he can enjoy the mystical benefits of having a mother in the home. If you really think that is best for the boy, ok, but we're going to have to disagree on that.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 12, 2008 6:53 PM
mroberts wrote:
This is absolutely false. There are dozens of studies now that show that children with gay parents are no different than children with straight parents. And no sane person would deny that an orphan is better off with a loving gay parent than they would be in an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 12, 2008 7:47 PM
And no sane person would deny that an orphan is better off with a loving gay parent than they would be in an orphanage or being bounced around foster homes.
Come on Ed, it is absurd to imply that there are going to be tons of kids bouncing around the foster care system if we don't allow gays to adopt. You seem to imply that allowing gays to adopt is the only solution if there are more kids than families. Certainly there are places where this happens, but the best solution is to enact policies to encourage adoption into married, mom and dad families.
There are dozens of studies now that show that children with gay parents are no different than children with straight parents.
What studies are those? I would be interested in seeing them. To me that assertion defies common sense, but I am willing to take a look at what you have on it.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 8:25 PM
Further, mrroberts, you would have to take the position that in this particular case it would be best for the child to be taken from the loving home he has lived in for years so that he can enjoy the mystical benefits of having a mother in the home.
Wow kehrsam, that is an interesting statement. Sounds like you are minimizing the role and benefit of a mother to something just merely "mystical". Are you saying that there are no real benefits to having a mother? You don't think that the role of a mother in the life of a child is important? Seems awfully insulting to all the women out there who have children - not to mention your own mom.
Posted by: mroberts | September 12, 2008 8:29 PM
mroberts wrote:
I didn't say any such thing. But if there are more children than families to adopt them - and there are, by a large margin - then preventing a group of people who are willing to adopt them and give them loving homes does doom some of those kids to life in foster homes or orphanages rather than with real families. Whether it would help all of them is irrelevant and your argument is idiotic. Clearly it will help some of them.
Go here. I'll make a prediction on what your response will be: "But that's from the ACLU and they're liberal and pro-gay." To which the answer is "so what." Chapter 4 of the publication lists study after study that has reached the exact same conclusion. But I doubt you'll even bother to read a single one of those studies, you'll just brush it all off as biased without ever bothering to engage the substance of the research at all.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 12, 2008 9:13 PM
mroberts:
I would never attempt to argue with you. You're absolutely disinterested in anyone's point of view that isn't in agreement with yours. You twist and turn in comment after comment to avoid telling the trut. You just hate gays and you hate people who have abortions. That hate thing? your buddy, JESUS, was not too big on it. Take a cue from him, love your neighbor, especially the gay one. Who knows, you might have an epiphany.
Posted by: democommie | September 12, 2008 9:16 PM
Re mroberts
Mr. mroberts has never gotten around to answering my question as to whether a natural child of one member of a lesbian couple (e.g. Mary Cheney) should be taken away from them. After all, if a gay lesbian couple is unfit to adopt, aren't they also unfit to raise a natural child? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: SLC | September 13, 2008 8:56 AM
mroberts -
First, there was evidence that allowing gays to raise kids would be fine.
Come on Ed, it is absurd to imply that there are going to be tons of kids bouncing around the foster care system if we don't allow gays to adopt.
But the plain ol truth is that there are tons of kids bouncing around the foster system, who need loving families to adopt them. And they will continue to languish in foster care, unless someone chooses to adopt them. It is also true that most of them are considered "unadoptable," because they either have special needs or are too old to expect adoption. And guess what? A great many gays are more than happy to take them in.
Certainly there are places where this happens, but the best solution is to enact policies to encourage adoption into married, mom and dad families.
Do you honestly believe that policies to encourage such adoptions haven't been tried? For fuck sakes, state agencies are absolutely desperate to encourage these adoptions and try to create all sorts of incentives for folks to adopt these kids. But when you are talking about kids who are five up, probably raised by a parent/s who was unstable, often a substance abuser, you have kids who have serious problems that will require a great deal of special care - care that a lot of want to be parents just aren't going to choose to take on. We won't even start on kids with MS, CP, autism, fetal alcohol syndrome and many other serious, special needs.
Indeed, it is because of the policies enacted to get these kids into stable homes, that a lot of gays choose to adopt them. It's easier to get a child from that group, than it is to get an infant or very young child. But see, a lot of gays just don't care about that - they have a warm, loving home to offer and are just fine with offering that to kids with special needs or who are otherwise unadoptable.
The fact is that in most places, it is nearly impossible to find enough foster parents, much less parents willing to adopt kids out of foster care. Here in Oregon, we have had to ship kids hundreds of miles from where they are raised, sometimes to other states, to find foster parents. So not only to they have a shit life, they are torn away from everything they know - just to find folks to take them in. And in foster care, there are pretty good odds that they will end up in a situation that is nearly as bed, as bad or worse than the situation with their natural parents was.
The bottom line is that I believe as a matter of policy we should be putting kids in the BEST possible situation: a committed, married, mom and dad.
So my kids really should be taken away then. Because while we are a loving, committed mom and dad, we are not and never will be married. Sorry, but growing up with the sanctity of marriage made into a mockery (by hetero's no less) has turned our stomachs.
On top of that, we will probably end up taking in foster kids and/or adopting when our current menagerie is much older. We are not in a position to do it now, but we both have a heart for kids in the foster system and have a lot of love to offer them. We may even take in kids with special needs, hopefully doing as well as our gay friends at raising them.
Are you saying that there are no real benefits to having a mother?
None that can't be compensated for.
You don't think that the role of a mother in the life of a child is important?
What's important is having parents who love and care for them. The bottom line is that a great many kids aren't going to have a mother anyways. What you are saying is that it is better for those kids to languish in the foster system, than for them to be raised by gay parents.
Seems awfully insulting to all the women out there who have children - not to mention your own mom.
Funny, the mother of my children has said on more than one occasion, that our kids would be better off raised by some of the gays we know. Our oldest has some significant behavioral problems related to his neurological makeup (thanks to my genetic contribution). It is reasonable to assume that the nine month old will too. While we are decent parents, we struggle a lot to deal with it and find ourselves at a loss on a regular basis. It will all work out - we are working very hard to see that it does. But we also know other parents that seem to deal with worse, a lot better than we deal with what we've been given.
So no, it's not insulting in the least.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 13, 2008 12:42 PM
An interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald today. Perhaps having a mother isn't so hot after all. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 13, 2008 12:54 PM
mroberts -
Then what possible reason could you have to make it illegal for them to adopt? The only argument you can offer is "a mom and a dad, loving and committed to one another, are BETTER". Putting aside for a moment the validity of that claim, you cannot possibly believe that's always the alternative. By your own admission, couples of both types run the gamut from good to bad parents. So how does forbidding gays to adopt ensure the child will get something better?Posted by: Taz | September 13, 2008 9:36 PM