Who’s Caring for the Kids?
The push for civil liberties is a reality that many Americans can understand. From the education of our youngsters in grade school about the Civil War and the subsequent Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, to more current battles being waged in courts all over the country regarding everything from immigration reform to gay adoption, the desire for equal rights has been on the conscience of the American psyche for quite some time. Conservative politicians and religious based groups are working to prohibit the adoption of children to gay men and lesbians around the country. These various opposing entities maintain that gay households produce inferior individuals and as a result should not be allowed to adopt. That gay families provide less than adequate environments for children without homes awaiting adoption is not only untrue, but is particularly discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. Gay households are no less likely to produce normal children than non-gay households, and to deny any person or couple the right to adopt based on their sexual orientation rather than their ability to provide is unconstitutional and detrimental to those truly in need, the foster children awaiting adoption.
Many reputable organizations agree, “[a] growing number of child-welfare groups and medical associations have come out in support of adoption by gay men and lesbians, including the Child Welfare League, the American academy of Pediatrics, the American academy of Physicians, the American Psychological Association, and the North American Counsel on Adoptable Children,” states William Dudley, editor of the book, Issues in Adoption (155). This seems the standard statement of results of the many studies conducted on the issue surrounding homosexuals and their rights to adopt children. Yet, the opponents to gay adoption claim that children reared by homosexuals have greater risks of their sexual identifications being complicated by homosexuality, are more mentally and psychologically unstable, and will be at risk of being sexually abused by their parents’ friends (Dudley 161). These claims are in direct contradiction to the vast majority of the research and field reports that are all being supported by an overwhelming number of reputable and prestigious organizations. Also, “The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has long affirmed that gay men and lesbians are capable parents” (Dudley 166). That the individuals who are doing the actual work with these families is affirming there is no difference between children from gay and hetero households probably holds the most gravity concerning my opinions regarding the situation. If it is anybody who knows the various states of the households prior to placements with gay families, would it not be the people assigned to monitor these families?
In Nate Blakeslee’s article in a March 2007 issue of Texas Monthly, he says that “[e]very major child welfare organization, along with the American Psychiatric Association, has now concluded that children raised by same-sex parents are no less healthy or well adjusted than those raised by straight parents. (Nor are they more likely to be homosexual)” (Blakeslee 284). Again, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that there are no adverse effects of being raised by gay parents. In fact, Blakeslee also states throughout the article that most agencies will place a child with a gay family and not report the sexual orientation to their superiors or government officials. They are evidently trained to do so, as William Dudley also outlined in his book previously mentioned. Despite of the need of the placement of these children with families, many states still prohibit gay adoption, or offer no real comparable legal alternatives to the situations that heterosexual parents receive, with outrageous costs for complicated contracts which still ensure inferior liberties (Blakeslee 285). It seems that many state governments disallow gay adoptions based solely on moral opinion, seeing as how there is a cache of positive research supporting gay adoption. This difficulty in obtaining a legal blanket of security for the benefit of the child does not do much to help any party.
In the book, Issue in Gay and Lesbian Adoption, Ann Sullivan, editor, states that as far back as the late 1980s, researchers have been stating, in opposition to what was then popular psychological theory, that children from families other than the traditional nuclear model develop no differently (Sullivan 24). There are also common misconceptions that the public has regarding homosexual stereotypes and adoption. Sullivan says that the various myths abound: that children might be molested at a higher frequency, that the children will become gay, and that adopted children living with gay parents are living immorally (Sullivan 4). These wedge issues are what the opponents use to influence public opinion in their favor. Considering that there is little or no evidence supporting the first two claims and the last claim is a basic moral belief, it is hard to see how the argument against gay adoption holds much if any, water at all.
In his article “Gay Parenting on Trial” in Christianity Today, John Kennedy interviewed a woman by the name of Suzanne Cook, who, growing up, had a gay father who left her mother to pursue a gay relationship. She claims her brother was molested by her father’s partner, inferring that it was because that the man was gay. She went on to say that “[e]ven her mother encouraged her to have sex so that she wouldn’t mistakenly wed a homosexual” (Kennedy 11). As these circumstances are unfortunate, there is little reason to ban outright gay adoption, seeing as how this obviously is one circumstance and not the norm. Also, the woman’s heterosexual mother did little to diffuse the sexual immorality of the situation with her own endorsement of promiscuity. Kennedy went on to quote Patricia Morgan, a British sociologist, who said that “research supportive of gay parenting shows a tendency toward "extravagant claims" from sympathetic researchers,” (12). Morgan went on to say, “We can't compromise where there are moral standards or empirical standards... Both have been compromised at the moment.” Not only is it hard to believe that all the researchers involved are ‘sympathetic’ to homosexuals, but her own personal morals seem to be affecting her opinions.
 The Catholic Charities in Boston has “decided to abandon adoption services rather than comply with a state law that requires no discrimination” against gays looking to adopt, The National Catholic Reporter stated in a March 2006 article. The Catholic Church is one of the most adamant opponents to gay adoptions. “Objectively disordered” and “gravely immoral,” the placement of foster children with gay families “would actually mean doing violence to these children” (“Boosting The anti-gay Troops” 28). These are the sentiments of Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Where the outright cessation of adoption helps the system, I will never know, but it is clear that the church is not interested in the scientific data provided by the many agencies looking into the issue. Again, moral differences are cited as reasons for opposition, though this makes little sense, being that most individuals have their own unique sets of morals.
In conclusion, the evidence supporting the normalcy of gay adoptive families is overwhelming to say the least. It seems that certain individuals are inherently opposed to the issue for a number of different reasons, citing everything from molestation risks to sexual deviancy. Considering that these claims were loosely backed by often opinionated and unfounded morals and myths, it is hard to see the benefit gained by prohibiting a loving family from adopting a child who needs a home. Gay men and lesbians do not pose any extra risks to the natural and proper development of their children, and the prohibition of adoption based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional and “immoral.”

By Joseph White

Works Cited
Blakeslee, Nate. "Family Values." Texas Monthly 35.3 (Mar. 2007): 142-298. Academic Search
Complete. EBSCO. [Collin Library], [Plano], [Tx]. 30 Apr. 2008
<http://library.ccccd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d
b=a9h&AN=24053101&site=ehost-live>.
"Boosting the anti-gay troops." National Catholic Reporter 24 Mar. 2006: 28+. Academic Search
Complete. EBSCO. [Colin Library], [Plano], [Tx]. 30 Apr. 2008
<http://library.ccccd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d
b=a9h&AN=20290185&site=ehost-live>.
Dudley, William, ed. Issues in Adpotion. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press, 2004.
Kennedy, John W. "Gay parenting on trial." Christianity Today 46.8 (08 July 2002): 11.
Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. [Collin Library], [Plano], [Tx]. 30 Apr. 2008
<http://library.ccccd.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d
b=a9h&AN=6876549&site=ehost-live>.
Sullivan, Ann, ed. Issues in Gay and Lesbian Adoption. Washington D.C.: CWLA, 1994.