Running head: GAY ADOPTION 1

GAY ADOPTION – THE CHILD'S PERSPECTIVE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Regina Wesseh

Brandon Alva

English 2010

April 24, 2018

GAY ADOPTION 2

Introduction

Common belief is that arguments against gay adoption center on concepts about the

composition of a family as adopted from most religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Adoption agencies, county governments and most national laws to date place limitations on gay

adoption by placing an emphasis on arguments based on child interests. On the other hand,

advocates aimed at extending Equal Rights towards LGBTQ citizens argue that laws

discriminating against same-sex parents infringe on the rights of the individuals. In effect, the

question on the problem seems to target the sexual orientation of the parents where even

arguments claiming to address the best interests of the child nevertheless fashion their

argumentative premise on the sexual orientation of the parents. Considering the status quo on the

issue of gay adoption, perhaps a different perspective is required. In this paper, the intent is to

explore the matter of gay adoption by placing an emphasis on the views held by the children

from same-sex parents in the hope of addressing questions on child interests from the parties

most directly affected.

Literature on Gay Adoption

As noted, most primal arguments against gay adoption focus on child interests.

Additionally, the major premise around which such arguments base their propositions argue from

the religious perspective. First, arguments cite that not only are same-sex parents religiously

objected in Abrahamic faiths, such arrangements are unnatural. Additional arguments cite that

same-sex parents ignore the interests of the child by focusing on their own need for familial

connections thereby placing the child in a position where they become ostracized on account of

their difference (Clarke, 2001, p. 555 -556). Other arguments state that same-sex parents fail to
GAY ADOPTION 3

offer appropriate role models to children of the opposite sex which in turn encourages bullying in

schools and communities. Victoria Clarke in ​What About the Children? Arguments Against

Lesbian and Gay Parenting​ highlights the prejudice over family units formed by LGBT couples

that “it is generally assumed in law that lesbians and gay men do not form meaningful

relationships with each other and do not have children (Clarke, p. 556)”. By contrasts,

proponents of gay adoption basically proffer their arguments around the concept of adequate

parentage where social studies aimed at defining the best forms of parent-models display no

discernable differences between same-sex and mixed-sex parentage.

In the argument on child interests, numerous judicial rulings provide insight on the

quality of arguments for or against gay adoption. The Vermont Supreme Court in 1993 ruled that

laws against gay adoption in effect must establish clear evidence where the child’s interests were

infringed upon by same-sex couples. “We are not called upon to approve or disapprove the

relationship between the [co-parents]…To deny legal protection of their relationship…is

inconsistent with the child’s interests…” (Appell, 2001, p. 81). Considering the above Vermont

ruling that argued for gay adoption based on the interests of the child, a different court ruling

shows the complexity of the issue. In ​Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and

Family Services​, the courts ruled that rational arguments prevailed in the case against gay

adoption. This was because there was clear evidence that same-sex parents faced discrimination

in the form of ‘disparate treatment of homosexuals and heterosexual singles’ such that placing

children within such atmospheres would in effect prove detrimental to their interests (Jozwiak,

2005, p. 408).
GAY ADOPTION 4

In a report on adoption and foster care by same-sex or gay individuals, Gates et.al. noted

that legal statutes aimed at limiting gay adoption or foster care status would impact on the lives

of close to 15000 children in foster care while some 65000 children lived with gay/lesbian

parents in California alone (Gates et.al., 2007, p. 5). In Elovitz’s article, ​Adoption by Lesbian and

Gay People​, it is noted that in addition to judicial courts sponsoring legal ties between parents

and children, care is given to establish emotional ties between the child and parent or parents

(Elovitz, 1995, p. 208). In the case on the re-adoption of Evan, the court ruled, “…the adoption

brings Evan the additional security conferred by formal recognition in an organized society. As

he matures, his connection with two involved, loving parents will not be a relationship seen as

outside the law, but one sustained by​ ​the ongoing, legal recognition of an approved, court

ordered adoption (p. 208).”

Perspectives from Adopted Children

George*[a fictional name] is a 16 year old Boston resident who was adopted nine years

ago by a lesbian couple. Having come from the foster care system where George experienced a

number of homes, his perspective on adoption by gay couples comes as an eye-opener.

According to George, the common narratives regarding disadvantages and oppressions that

children from same-sex marriages or families bear a good measure of truth. From early age,

George faced bullying from his peers as well as minimal levels of ostracism. According to

George, the major impetus behind the bullying came from his identity as a child from both a

foster care system as well as his parentage. Identifying the root cause behind the oppression is

not easy for George. According to him, while the school system in Boston is fair to children with

statuses similar to his own, the major conflicts arise from his own peers.
GAY ADOPTION 5

George describes what he deems a normal weekend for him. Most weekends are spent

playing online video games like WoW with the encouragement of both his mothers. He believes

the reason they encourage his interactions with other boys on online platforms stems from the

fact that he has far more female friends than males. George confesses to being troubled by this

realization: the fact that his mothers note his lack of male friends as well as the fact that he

relates more to his female ones. He observes that his parents work hard to interact with others

from different backgrounds in the hope that he builds deeper relationships with his peers.

While his mother Martha* spends more time away at work, it is Gem* who provides

what he considers emotional support. George does not discriminate between either parents as

dominant or lesser in terms of their roles as parents. Instead, George considers their positions in

his life as necessary for him even with seeming absenteeism from his other parent. George

confesses that the absenteeism does not matter to him so much but for the fact that he is often

forced to witness his other mother – Martha – sometimes struggle to deal with him. His

intimation is that Martha’s problem stems not from her inability to provide an adequate

role-model figure for him but rather from some sort of pressure to provide for George a

semblance of ‘ordinary’ family life.

According to George, the major problem he faces as a child in a family with same-sex

parents is the misunderstanding he encounters from his peers. As he noted, he faced some forms

of oppression. However, George also observes that the forms of oppression he faces are abstruse

in that peers from both sexes do not quite treat him as they would other peers. Males seem

reserved in their interactions with him while females appear closer. When asked to elaborate,

George intimates that most of his peers consider him bisexual to some level although there is no
GAY ADOPTION 6

justification for such observations. George believes that such characterizations of his nature stem

from a belief that he is more feminine in nature. To George, this is not a problem but for the

seeming stresses this places upon his mothers. For George, as he repeatedly states, the problem

lies on the pressure his mother's face to provide what they think is adequate parenthood while his

own opinion is that they are adequate in their treatment of him.

Analysis

Interestingly, it is that critical factor that shapes George’s view on adoption itself as well

as adoption into a family of same-sex couples; the support from adult figures. George observed

that most children from mixed-sex parents do not have the same ‘advantages’ he holds. His

parents are proactive in seeking opportunities to engage George in interactions as opposed to

others who assume the natural and consequential development of such relationships. More

importantly, George believes that it is because of their exerted efforts in engaging him that he

feels more affectionate – and loved – to his parents. George believes that because his moms feel

they are lacking in something that he as their child requires, they often go the extra mile towards

meeting his emotional needs and this makes up for whatever else others think he requires.

Conclusion

On the matter of gay adoption, explorations from both social and legal circles lead one to

believe that the question belongs more to the realm of ethics than legality. Moreover, it becomes

evident that the principle agents concerned in the matter – the children - receive few platforms to

address their concerns other than incidental mentions in court proceedings or research findings.

From the perspective of the child, emotional support weighs more than social norms regarding

heteronormative social constructs. More importantly, it may be relevant that same-sex couples
GAY ADOPTION 7

experience a greater familial and social pressure to secure and promote the interests of the child.

That said, it must be considered – as observed in the Lofton case against the department of child

care, sometimes extrajudicial considerations play a great role in determining the case for the

interests of the child though circumstances entailing such instances depend on case-by-case

considerations.
GAY ADOPTION 8

References

Appell, A. R. (2001). Lesbian and Gay Adoption. ​Adoption quarterly, 4​(3), 75 - 86. Retrieved

April 6, 2018

Clarke, V. (2001). WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? ARGUMENTS AGAINST LESBIAN

AND GAY PARENTING. ​Women’s Studies International Forum,, 24​(5), 555 - 570.

Retrieved April 5, 2018

Elovitz, M. E. (1995). ADOPTION BY LESBIAN AND GAY PEOPLE: THE USE AND

MIS-USE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH. ​DUKE JOURNAL OF GENDER LAW

& POLICY, 2​(207), 207 - 225. Retrieved April 6, 2018

Gates, G., Badgett, M., Macomber, J. E., & Chambers, K. (2007). ​Adoption and Foster Care by

Gay and Lesbian Parents in the United States.​ University of California, California Digital

Library. L.A.: California Center for Population Research. Retrieved April 7, 2018

Jozwiak, C. D. (2005). Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & (and) Family

Services: Florida's Gay Adoption Ban under Irrational Equal Protection Analysis. ​Law &

Iequality, 23​(2), 407 - 428. Retrieved April 5, 2018