Megan Luckey - April 24th, 2013
The second-parent adoption ban in many states is becoming a significant problem for unmarried couples who wish to adopt; moreover, the adoption ban is harming the children involved, both legally and emotionally. According to the National Adoption Center, a second parent adoption is “the adoption of a child by the unmarried parent's domestic partner” whether the couple is gay or straight; additionally, the National Adoption center states “second-parent adoptions are similar to stepparent adoptions, but are not permitted in every jurisdiction” (National Adoption Center). Many interest groups are fighting to remove the second-parent adoption ban. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), founded in 1980, is a civil rights organization striving for equality towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans. HRC’s logo, used widely across social media sites, is an equal sign symbolizing the fight for equal rights towards LGBT Americans. LGBT is an acronym which refers to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. The LGBT community fights for equality towards LGBT Americans alongside HRC. The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) is a coalition of both private and public agencies who endeavor to protect the best interests of children. The CWLA opposes the second-parent adoption ban. In contrast, many interest groups support the second-parent adoption ban and fight to keep the adoption ban in place. Focus on the Family is a Christian ministry driven by religious beliefs and faith; additionally, Focus on the Family supports the second-parent adoption ban and believe a family should be between married heterosexual couples. Concerned Women for America (CWFA) is a public policy women’s organization whose beliefs are based on biblical principles; furthermore, CWFA supports the second-parent adoption ban and works with Focus on the Family to keep the law intact.
Adoption Ban and the Military
The Human Rights Campaign, LGBT, and military dependents are concerned about the effect the second-parent adoption ban has on military families stationed in various places. Military dependents receive benefits and homosexual couples with second-parent adoption rights may not be able to enroll children in DEERS; therefore, military dependents of homosexual couples may not be able to receive benefits. In the article “A ‘military spouse of the year’ closely watches the Supreme Court,” Mary C. Curtis references expert opinions from a homosexual military spouse who claims the second-parent adoption ban where her wife is stationed causes her wife to be treated as a “second class citizen”. According to the author, research has shown the second-parent adoption ban is unfair to military service members because active duty military cannot choose to live in a state where specific marriage/adoption rights are recognized; however, civilians can choose to live where the second-parent adoption is legal. Curtis appeals to ethos by implying taking the right to adopt children away from someone fighting for our country is wrong, claiming “we can’t have second-class citizens”; in addition, she implies the second-parent adoption ban in North Carolina where Broadway’s spouse is stationed is unfair and the ban should be lifted, if not for everyone, at least for military members and dependents. If the author can successfully convince states to insert an exception to the second-parent adoption ban for military personnel stationed in the area, then military service members will no longer feel treated as second-class citizens.
Military families face social difficulties due to the duty station; however, active duty military can also have problems enrolling children in the DEERS program. In the article “Family Benefits: Having Children and Adopting,” Outserve illustrates the complications military families face registering children in DEERS if the service member has parental rights through a second-parent adoption. Outserve suggests the second-parent adoption ban is unfair and causes negative effects on the children involved because the ban may make it difficult for children to receive the necessary benefits for a military dependent. When Outserve suggests “the service member may encounter problems registering the child as a dependent,” he/she implies because the second-parent adoption ban is in place, the child may not be able to receive the benefits of a military dependent; in addition, the child may suffer in other ways by not receiving the counseling services granted to military children. If the author’s reference to the DEERS program can convince state politicians the second-parent adoption ban is unfavorable to military children, then politicians can vote to overturn the second-parent adoption ban for military service members. Some military families can have trouble enrolling children in the military dependent program known as DEERS; furthermore, homosexual civilian couples can face legal problems in the court system if the couple decides to split or the biological parent becomes hospitalized.
Adoption Ban and Homosexual Couples
Many members of the LGBT and Child Welfare League of America oppose the second-parent adoption ban. Homosexual couples are not allowed to get married in most states and some states ban adoption by unmarried couples; therefore, homosexual couples are not always able to adopt children. In the article “April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan Lesbian Couple, Could Challenge State’s Gay Marriage Ban,” Ed White challenges the idea a second-parent adoption is damaging to the child indicating the adoption ban leads to unnecessary strife for the unrecognized parent in the event the legal parent passes away. White demonstrates the struggles faced by an unmarried couple with children by demonstrating the legal difficulties one would face in the event the legal parent passed away. He appeals to sympathy revealing both parent and child(ren) are emotionally hurt by the second-parent adoption ban, saying “if either woman died, the other would not be instantly recognized as the legal parent of the remaining children;” additionally, he forces readers to face the harsh reality the legal system puts children of unmarried couples through. If White can convince state leaders the second-parent adoption ban puts both children and parents in a bad spot legally and can lead to severe emotional trauma for children, then state leaders can vote to remove the adoption ban or insert some kind of failsafe for families who are in legal situations caused by the second-parent adoption ban.
The legal repercussions for both parents not having parental rights to the child(ren) is bad enough; however, some states make it even more difficult by not allowing homosexuals the option to adopt children. In the article “Gay Marriage and Children: The Worst States for Kids of Same-Sex Parent,” the author illustrates the difficulty presented by attempting to adopt a child if the person is in a same-sex relationship. According to the Huffington Post, research has shown only a small amount of states allow for homosexual couples to petition for a second-parent adoption. When the author says “the availability of the practice is uncertain in most states and filled with legal obstacles in others” he/she demonstrates the legal problems homosexual couples face when trying to petition for a second-parent adoption. If the author can convince more states to allow homosexual couples to petition for a second-parent adoption and simplify the process, then the children of these couples would face much less emotion stress and the family would be legally secure. Homosexual couples are not the only ones facing legal problems due to the second-parent adoption ban; in addition, unmarried heterosexual couples face legal problems when trying to petition for a second-parent adoption.
Adoption Ban and Non-Married Heterosexual Couples
Both the Human Rights Campaign and children of non-married heterosexual couples compete against the second-parent adoption ban. Some people decide to remain unmarried and some states do not allow adoption by unmarried couples; therefore, unmarried couples are unable to adopt children in states where second-parent adoptions are banned. In the article “Second Parent Adoption: A Model Brief,” Suzanne Bryant’ explains even a heterosexual couple with biological ties to the child can face problems adopting a child out of wedlock. Bryant’ illustrates the legal issues unmarried heterosexual couples can face when trying to petition for a second-parent adoption without removing the rights of the biological parent. She appeals to logos revealing the faulty logic in the second-parent adoption ban, saying “the biological parent must relinquish parental rights prior to the adoption;” in addition, she reveals the lack of logic demonstrated by the laws surrounding the second-parent adoption ban. If Bryant’ can convince policy makers the second-parent adoption ban is unfair and illogical, then policy makers can modify the adoption ban so the law is more logically sound; consequently, the biological parent will not have to relinquish parental rights.
The laws surrounding the second-parent adoption ban are not only illogical, but also emotionally unhealthy for the children of unmarried parents. In the article “Adoption,” Unmarried Equality demonstrates the benefits of children having legal ties to two parents, rather than one; however, some states are removing legal ties by not allowing second-parent adoptions. According to Unmarried Equality, many couples are raising children who have only one legal parent due to the second-parent adoption ban. When the author says “it would benefit the child(ren) to have a legal relationship to both parents,” he/she implies the second-parent adoption ban can be legally detrimental to the child(ren) in the event of a separation or death. If Unmarried Equality can convince lawmakers the second-parent adoption ban is legally and emotionally wearing on children of unmarried couples, then lawmakers can modify the law to include protections for these children.
Many people who support the second-parent adoption ban are unaware of the emotional damage the adoption ban causes; however the “absolutism” parenting should only be between a married man and woman causes interest groups like Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America to overlook the children of unmarried hetero/homosexual couples. Interest groups in favor of the adoption ban believe children are best parented in the hands of married heterosexual couples; however, parenting views are opinions and are not necessarily true. I am against homosexual marriage under God; however, I believe gay marriage is fine with a non-Christian marriage ceremony. Therefore, my position in the second-parent adoption debate was initially unsecure. After researching the debate surrounding the second-parent adoption ban, I noticed the arguments in support of the adoption ban were full of thinking errors and illogicality. In order to solve the “absolutism,” people need to look beyond personal beliefs and review the facts. Logic is in favor of removing the second-parent adoption ban because children benefit emotionally and legally by having two legal parents.
Works Cited
"Adoption Glossary - S to Z." 2012. National Adoption Center. web. 3 April 2013. “The adoption of a child by the unmarried parent's domestic partner. Second-parent adoptions are similar to stepparent adoptions, but are not permitted in every jurisdiction” (National Adoption Center).
Bryant', Suzanne. "Second Parent Adoption: A Model Brief."
Curtis, Mary C. "A 'military spouse of the year' closely watches the Supreme Court." 27 March 2013. The Washington Post. web. 1 April 2013.
"Gay Marriage and Children: The Worst States for Kids of Same Sex Parents." 29 March 2013. Huffington Post. web. 1 April 2013.
Outserve SLDN. Family Benefits. 2013. web. 8 April 2013.
Unmarried Equality. Adoption. 2013. web. 8 April 2013. 1995. Duke Law. web. 3 April 2013.
White, Ed. "April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, Michigan Lesbian Couple, Could Challenge State's Gay Marriage Ban." 6 March 2013. Huffington Post. web. 1 March 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment