Last week Mexico City took progressive action, legalizing same sex marriage and adoption. Our southern neighbor’s controversial ruling is giving new fuel to both sides in the debate over same-sex rights in the U.S. In many states, same-sex marriage advocates hit a roadblock in changing the rhetoric that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. This issue, it turns out, is much more serious than a quick edit that would allow a union between two women or two men to also be called a marriage. And while initially the law did not put limitations on the right to adopt, as other gay rights issues such as marriage started to spark controversy, the right to adopt was also called into question.
The issue of gay marriage is understandably a huge issue among those waiting for that right and the people who support them. The enormity of this issue is considered by many one of the most important civil rights issues of our time. For this issue to be resolved, legislation needs to be put through (and has been put through in 5 states, with New Hampshire and the District of Columbia on track to follow suit in Jan. 2010) to change the language in our laws.
Adoption, for the most part, is a right that nearly everyone possessed by law. Unlike the issue of gay marriage, which is a right many states have yet to grant (except for in the case of California, Arizona, and Florida, where the constitutions have been changed in order to exclude gay marriage), adoption by same sex couples or single gay people is a right that is being taken away. To regulate the rights of individuals seems to encroach on sacred ground when it comes to the U.S. Constitution, which states in the 14th Amendment that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Infringing on one’s rights to marry as well as to adopt has implications that could jeopardize the Constitution in this aspect and others, and the issue of adoption in particular seems to already have been used in contradiction with the Constitution. Many opponents to same-sex marriage argue that same-sex couples should have the right to have a civil union, but should not call it marriage. The problem with this discrepancy is that giving individuals different rights in any regard could result in more rights being taken away, in an effort to achieve equality for all in different ways. The last time I checked, “separate but equal” was overturned in the 1950’s; yet today, equal rights is still a topic of debate. The issue of adoption is not a matter of having equal but different rights, like marriage; it is a difference between those who can and those who can’t.
Among rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens is the right to have a child. A natural right, no doubt, without limitations. In the U.S., the state does not have the right to choose who can and cannot give birth. Although child abuse and neglect are certainly present in our country, the state does not have the right to deem someone unfit to bear children. Since this is the case, is it fair to limit one’s right to adopt? Certainly there is a necessary screening process for prospective adoptive parents. The adoptive family must prove they can provide a safe and stable environment for a child; it would of course make sense to ensure that children coming from unstable and unsafe environments are indeed going to see their situations improve. But to make a distinction between certain groups of people and their right to adopt and care for children is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
If the law as defined by the U.S. Constitution appears to defend gay adoption, the foster care crisis may just seal the deal. Every year between 2002 and 2008 there were over 748,000 U.S. children in the foster care system. Over 123,000 children per year were waiting to be adopted, and only about 50,000 per year found an adoptive family. Every year over 20,000 children age out of the foster care system and are left with the responsibility of finding shelter, healthcare, and education. 46% will not graduate from high school and 98% will not go to college. Many of these young people, unprepared for their independence, will resort to criminal behavior. In a nation with so many children left uncared for, it seems counterproductive to decrease the number of adults who are eligible to adopt.
In 2008, Arkansas passed Act 1, which prohibits single people, gay and straight, from adopting or serving as foster parents. Many gay rights advocates feel this ruling targets gays in particular, since lawmakers attempted to pass a law that prohibited gays and lesbians from adopting two years prior, but such a proposal was ruled discriminatory by the Arkansas Supreme Court. Act 1 passed in Arkansas with 57% of the vote, and it is not the only state to prohibit gay adoption in some form. Many states will allow single but not joint adoption by gays and lesbians. Florida is the only state that exclusively outlaws adoption in any form by gays and lesbians.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia assert that sexual orientation cannot be grounds to deny anyone the right to adopt, and while opposition continues to gain steam, there are signs that supporters of gay singles and couples in their pursuit to adopt have a fighting chance. Florida’s leading democratic candidate for the 2010 governor race, Alex Sink, supports any adoption that serves the best interest of the child, and has committed to working with FL state senator, Nan Rich, who has been working to repeal the adoption ban on gays and lesbians. Sink has been raising funds at two times the rate of the republican candidate, Bill McCollum. On a national level, Congressman Pete Stark of California has introduced a bill to congress that would outlaw any legislation that puts limitations on adoption due to sexual orientation or marital status.
The issue of gay adoption comes down to people’s core values, and these values cannot be swayed easily. As is often the case, the deciding factor could be those who sit at the sidelines. A serious look at the proposals and the candidates at hand, combined with more voters at the polls, is sure to have an effect on outcomes. Gay marriage is an issue on the forefront for gay rights advocates, reaching the homes of many through media coverage of protests and rallies; the issue of gay adoption has the potential to reach just as many if advocates for gay rights commit to making gay adoption a visible issue. While activists, lawmakers, and voters scramble to pass the bill that best represents their ideals, hundreds of thousands of American children await their decisions. Every year tens of thousands reach the age of 18 and miss out on the right to have a family. As they lose this right it is ironic that they gain another, one of the most powerful allowed to any U.S. citizen, and one that can effectively change the future for many like them – the right to vote.
Related Articles
The Narrative of International Adoption
Transnational Adoption and the “Financialization of Everything”
EDITORIAL International Adoption and the Fight for Human Rights
Caty is from the tiniest of towns in western Massachusetts. She has worked as a public school teacher as well as an administrator for a private education company. Having received both her undergraduate and graduate degrees in English, Caty works as a freelance writer and editor. She now resides in the Washington, D.C. area with her husband, Zach, and their son, James.
the state can and does deem who can and cannot bare and raise children. (this happens every single day) I have no issues with gay rights however I do take issue with gay adoption. On principle, it seems wrong to deny someone the right to anything based on sexual orientation. There are many states and provinces in North America that have gay social workers & even gay foster parents and gay forever parents. Lesbians do in vitro and have their partners legally adopt the baby. It is already happening there is just no blanket mainstream permission constitutionally or locally. I do not discriminate against anyone and this is nothing personal – but for a moment just think of how much the demand for infants would rise – if we give this legality a whole yes? Babies and children are already a commodity. Let’s not add to the demand. Gays & Lesbians have already become parents in various forms. There’s no need to add to the market. The rights of children should never be about exclusion or inclusion of who can and can’t adopt. Adoption needs to be abolished and soon. The slave trade must end.
Insightful?:
4 
0
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Quinn Waters, Mike Smith . Mike Smith said: Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America http://bit.ly/4up629 [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
There is no right to adopt! It does not exist. Not in the U.S. constitution or anywhere in the world. It is not a right or an entitlement.
Ina Hut, upon resigning in disgust as director of Wereldkinderen (World Children) the largest adoption agency in the Netherlands recognized that “would-be parents have strong desires, and I understand that. Everybody has the right to want children,” she said, adding: “but you don’t have the right to children. Children have the right to parents. The right to children doesn’t exist on this planet.”
Adopting someone else’s child is a privilege. In private adoption that choice is left to the mother of the child. In state adoptions that right is the state’s to chose who is best fit for each child’s needs because adoption is about finding homes for children, NOT finding children for anyone who wants one (although the privatization of adoption has created a money talks market place).
Some same sex couples – and single people – may make fine parents and may even be preferable for some children. But that is a case by case selection, and considered along with other criteria such as age.
The people who have their rights abdicated by adoption are the adoptee and his original family. Every adoption takes the link between them and eradicates it then issues a new falsified birth certificate stating the child was “born to” his adopters. In denying those spearated by doption acces to their own original birth certificates the US is denying them their civil human rights – a right all others have.
They are wronged party in adoption – the ones adoption is supposed ot be all about.
Mirah Riben, author
The Stork Market: America’s Multi-Billion Dollar Unregulated Adoption Industry
http://AdvocatePublications.com
Well-loved! Insightful?:
9 
0
The “RIGHT” to adopt? Are you out of your mind? Do you mean the right to purchase a child without his/her consent, have their original, authentic birth certificate sealed, and treat them like chattel to “bond” with your partner over?
I have nothing against finding homes for needy children, foster homes where the children are raised knowing that they have a biological family and where their identity isn’t erased. People (gay or straight) who adopt for THEIR NEEDS is extremely disgusting and makes me want to vomit.
I am an adult adoptee who cannot see her original birth certificate, get any family medical history, and don’t even know my ethnicity thanks to ADOPTION. I was adopted without my permission and without legal representation. I cannot do a family tree due to adoption and neither can my children. My health and their health is endangered due to adoption and it’s closed records.
The multi-billion dollar adoption industry has turned us into chattel, human beings turned into commodies. I am not a blank flesh canvas on which to paint an identity onto and neither are my fellow adoptees. I am not a tool to fix or enhance anyone’s romantic relationship. I am a human being. I want my civil rights back.
Well-loved! Insightful?:
7 
0
I have no porblem with gay union or adoption. I have read too many horror stories where adoptees are aboused by the family thats looks proper on the outside. I have knows several men who raised their children alone. Most because of a spouse’s death, but some just because the woman walked away.
I take offense to the entitlement part of this story. No one has a right to adopt same as no one has a right to a drivers license, its a privilege and should be states as such.
I agree with Mara, that gay and lesbian marriages will increase the supply side of infant availablilty to meet the demand of the new couples wanting to adopt. My hope would be that the gay community would take a more ethical approach and look into their own back yard, adopt children who are a little less cute&cuddly and more in need of a good stable home to keep them from aging out with no skills or means to care for themselves, which only increases the population in our correctional facilities. Obviously they have no obligation to do this, and are free to adopt any type child they desire. My hope is they will see the need no one else seems to be paying attention to.
Insightful?:
4 
0
You all are losing sight of the point of this article…it’s not about the adoption system; it’s about equal rights. Obviously adoption isn’t a right in the constitution, just like drinking from the same water fountain as everyone else isn’t a right.
If anyone is going to be allowed to adopt, EVERYONE should be allowed to adopt, and obviously there should be a screening process, which is pointed out in the article. We are talking about discrimination here and it’s a relevant topic that needs to be discussed. don’t diminish that.
Insightful?:
2 
0
The commentators are correct. There is no universal right to adopt. It is always subject to restrictions imposed by the state. Having said that, I don’t think there should be any discrimination against gay couples or single people when it comes to qualifying for adoption. And I agree with the rest of the posters that adoption should always be about what a child needs. I like wht Lori A said. The propensity for many gay couples to depend on repro tech to make copies of themselves does bug me when there are kids who need parents.
Insightful?:
3 
0
Oh dear.
Andrew, adoptees are not water. We’re people. It’s nothing at all like everyone drinking from the same water fountain. It’s not even ball park. The article is about the adoption system. Any article that proposes to place children in adoptive homes of one kind or another is about the adoption system. Adoption is theoretically about what happens to children. I’ll grant you that in reality, it’s not. For too many years, the adoption system has masqueraded as a child welfare system when in reality it is nothing more than an industry supplying needy adults with offspring. This article is just one more example of that reality.
Insightful?:
4 
0
Discrimination, Andrew? Obviously you have NO IDEA THE AMOUNT OF DISCRIMINATION THAT ADOPTEES ENDURE ON A DAILY BASIS.
Upon adoption, an adopted person’s original, truthful, authentic birth certificate is sealed. A false document “Amended Birth Certificate” is issued to that person without their permission listing his/her adoptive parents as his/her biological parents. This is the document that the adopted person is FORCED to use as identification although it is a falsified “legal” document.
In the State of California, the 2nd grade curriculum says that children must do family tree assignments. This state SEALED MY BIRTH CERTIFICATE yet it states that my children must do genealogical assignments!!!! My son could not complete the assignment last year because my ethnicity, my identity is SEALED!!!! When I confronted the teacher, principal and school board about this DISCRIMINATION I was yelled at and basically told to be GRATEFUL!!!!!
Since 9/11 a lot of adoptees are being denied passports out of the country because, get this, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONSIDER AMENDED BIRTH CERTIFICATES AS LEGAL DOCUMENTS. That’s right, the 44 states issue these lies but the federal government doesn’t believe them but the federal government refuses to force the states to STOP FALSIFYING BIRTH CERTIFICATES. Adopted persons have to spend lots of money and send it lots of other forms of identification to prove that they are citizens of this country just so they can get passports!!!!
DISCRIMINATION? How about being treated like a commodity and being sold? How about the children who are stolen from their parents for MONEY? You want to talk about discrimination? Please.
No one has A RIGHT to another person’s child. You may get the PRIVILEDGE of raising someone else’s child but don’t think for a minute it is your RIGHT.
Insightful?:
3 
0
I have not lost sight of the article. It states: “Adoption, for the most part, is a right that nearly everyone possessed by law.” And this is simply not so.
The article also states: “Among rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens is the right to have a child. ”
This too is not correct. It is the right of every parent to continue to nurture their child unless found unfit, or unless they voluntarily relinquish THAT RIGHT! There is not equal right for those who are infertile or have lifestyles which prevent conception to “have” or to obtain a child. No right to surrogacy. No right to purchase of ova or sperm. No right to adopt.
This subject is being discussed at http://FamilyPreservation.blogspot.com
Mirah Riben
Insightful?:
4 
0
You are taking this out of context. It says adoption is a NATURAL right. The only reason any of this is being put into law is because of states’ attempts to discriminate against the LGBT community!
It is truly horrible that adoptees are being denied passports and that there are any issues with documentation. You misread me if I don’t agree that that is a serious issue. but I don’t see this article supporting the kind of discrimination y’all are talking about. It seems to me that we should be able to agree that members of the LGBT should have the same rights as everyone else. That’s the point I take from this. You’re ignoring the obvious points and focusing on syntax.
And I’m quite aware that children are not water, thanks. I’m just saying again that you’re focusing on syntax. There are a lot of things that aren’t “rights” that still deserve to be treated equally.
Insightful?:
2 
0
Adoption is not a natural right. The courts have ruled on it. There is no fundamental right to adopt. Unfortunately, the statutes that permit erasing and replacing a child’s identity have yet to be struck down. Trying to establish the equal right to take part in an oppressive statute is a difficult task. Although we are children for only 18 years, adoption law steals our identity and refuses to relinquish it for a lifetime. In fact, longer than a lifetime. That’s what adoption is. It’s legalized, permanent identity theft.
I agree that members of the LGBT community should have an equal right to their identity including accurate birth information. They should not be discriminated against just because their parents relinquished them, and they were subsequently adopted. But no one has the right to procure, possess, and falsify the lineage of a child. That should also apply equally to everyone.
Child placement should always be about what is best for the child. The adults can fuss and fight all they want about who should be entitled to what, but placement should always be first and foremost about meeting the needs of that individual child. It’s an absolute abomination that parents have the ‘right’ to relinquish to strangers when family members are willing and able to take guardianship and raise the child. A child has a right to its family, but adoption agencies aren’t turning a buck from family guardianship. They’re making money from people who pay them to establish parental rights over an unrelated child. If placement is possible with a family member who is gay or lesbian, there should be no discrimination. But the best interest of humans in general is never to be placed with strangers who wish to permanently alter their identity in an attempt to claim them as their own. Like it or not, that’s what adoption is.
Insightful?:
1 
0
Oh, and regarding your statement, “The only reason any of this is being put into law is because of states’ attempts to discriminate against the LGBT community!”
Adoption has always been about discrimination and social appearances. I was adopted for no other reason than my parents were not married. Society didn’t want to be confronted with the evidence that people had sex outside of marriage. That was me. I was the evidence. They didn’t want to be bothered with the illegitimate love children produced by the sexual revolution of the 60′s. Many of us were removed forcibly from our mothers and shuffled away to married couples. Adoption was designed to facilitate this sort of thing. It’s the just nature of the beast. Don’t take it personally. You’re certainly not the first group unfairly targeted by adoption law.
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America Share and Enjoy: [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America Share and Enjoy: [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0
[...] Whose Right? Adoption Exclusion in America [...]
Insightful?:
0 
0