HOME / frame game: How you look at things.

Adopting PremisesThe sneaky debate over legalizing adoptions by gay couples.

By William SaletanPosted Thursday, Feb. 7, 2002, at 4:34 PM ET

Illustration by Robert Neubecker Several million American children reportedly live in homes with at least one gay parent. In most cases, the same-sex domestic partner of that parent has no legal parental rights or responsibilities. This week, the American Academy of Pediatrics declared that these "co-parents" should be allowed to undertake such rights and responsibilities by adopting their partners' children. The announcement has provoked outcries from conservatives, with each side claiming to represent science against politics. In truth, each side's "science" is loaded with politics. Here's how they fudge the data.

RSS

1. Define the presumption. Both sides acknowledge that the evidence on how well kids fare with gay parents as opposed to straight ones is incomplete and doesn't yet show big differences. Conservatives spin this tie as a win, figuring that current laws should stay in place until evidence proves that gay parenting is safe. Focus on the Family says the AAP's research is "inconclusive" and "should not be used in legal cases to make any argument." That way, the burden of proof stays on liberals.

The AAP shifts the burden to conservatives by defining their presumption as a prediction that big differences will show up in studies. The question, according to the AAP, is "whether there is any empiric support for these assumptions." Since those differences haven't shown up yet, the AAP concludes that the presumption has been falsified.

To make sure that the assumption that straight parents are superior can't be falsified, conservatives trot out the "guinea pig" argument. According to Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, gays shouldn't be allowed to raise kids—as they have in the studies reported so far—because "children are not guinea pigs and should not be used as pawns in some grand social experiment." The position of the Family Research Council, in short, is that families are too important to subject to research.

2. Define the question. According to Connor, "The International Journal of Epidemiology reported that among homosexuals, there is an increased incidence of suicide, depression, multiple sexual partners, and domestic violence compared to the heterosexual population." From this, Connor concludes that "problems endemic to the homosexual lifestyle make these relationships inherently unstable, and thus unsuitable for the raising of children."

Supporters of gay adoptions dispute these correlations. But to repeal bans on gay adoptions, they don't have to prove that gay couples, on average, are as parentally fit as straight couples. They just have to change the question to whether all straight couples are more parentally fit than all gay couples. Suppose, for example, there's more suicide, depression, promiscuity, and domestic violence among blacks than among whites. Would such findings justify a ban on adoptions by blacks? If not, why would they justify a ban on adoptions by gays?

Taking this approach, the AAP cites "evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual." Note the key word: can. "All the literature suggests that as long as a parent is providing a loving, caring environment, the parent's sexual orientation doesn't make a difference in the development of the child," says a co-author of the AAP policy. Again, note the key phrase: as long as. By narrowing the comparison to parentally fit couples, the AAP bypasses Connor's contention that straight couples, on average, are more parentally fit.

3. Define the standards. Connor says studies show that "sexual identity confusion is common among children raised by gay parents" and that "children of lesbians are less likely to fit traditional gender roles." The AAP denies the "identity confusion" charge but acknowledges that "men and women who had lesbian mothers were slightly more likely to consider the possibility of having a same-sex partner, and more of them had been involved in at least a brief relationship with someone of the same sex," though this didn't change the proportion who considered themselves gay as adults. In fact, says the AAP, "growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity," for example. In one study, the AAP notes, parents and teachers described kids of lesbians as "more affectionate, responsive, and protective" and less "bossy, negative, and domineering" than kids of straight parents.

These descriptions reek of bias. Each side is rigging the experiment by defining the outcome in terms—"affectionate," "tolerant," "confused"—that validate its own ideology. At one extreme is Connor's crude sexism. "Fathers masculinize their sons, mothers civilize them," he says. At the other extreme is the AAP's pseudoscientific liberalism, which holds that "obtaining donor sperm or arranging for a surrogate mother"—like "finding an accepting adoption agency" or "confronting emotional pain and restrictions imposed by heterosexism"—is just another "challenge" facing gays who want to be parents. Connor oversimplifies nature; the AAP treats it as morally irrelevant.

4. Define the variable. Connor says "children do best when raised by a mother and a father." Bob Knight, the family research director at Concerned Women for America, calls gay couples "motherless or fatherless families." CWA president Sandy Rios adds, "Telling the public that a homosexual couple can raise a child as effectively as a married couple is on par with telling them that a single mom provides as complete parenting as a mom-and-dad couple." Note the linguistic trick. These descriptions assume that what makes a mom-and-dad household better than a single-parent household is the number of genders. But there's another variable that could account for the difference: the number of parents. In that case, having two moms is more like having a mom and dad than like having just a mom.

The AAP plays a similar trick in reverse. "Because most children whose parents are gay or lesbian have experienced the divorce of their biologic parents, their subsequent psychologic development has to be understood in that context," says the AAP. "Children of divorced lesbian mothers grow up in ways that are very similar to children of divorced heterosexual mothers." By comparing lesbians to divorced straight women rather than to married straight women, the AAP eliminates fatherhood as an explanatory variable. In fact, by leaving fathers out of the equation, the AAP gets to portray male role models as an advantage of lesbian parenthood: "Lesbian mothers … have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers."

5. Define the alternative. Connor says legalizing gay adoptions would "deprive" children of having a loving mom and dad. To dodge that dilemma, the media and gay adoption advocates focus on the millions of kids whose alternative to being adopted by a well-off gay couple is far worse than being adopted by a well-off straight couple. They profile gay couples who have taken in orphans, sick or abused children, and Asian kids for whom adoptive parents are hard to find. Connor says it would be better to get straight couples to adopt these kids. But until he recruits enough volunteers, he'll have to explain why living in an orphanage or with a drug-addicted mom is better than having two dads.

6. Define the conditions. Conservatives argue that being adopted by a gay couple puts a kid in an awkward situation. The AAP bypasses this objection by limiting the debate to kids who are already in that situation. The AAP doesn't explicitly endorse a gay couple adopting a child from outside their home. Instead, it says, "Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents." On this basis, the AAP says the other member of the couple should be allowed to adopt the child as well, thereby guaranteeing the child not only a feeling of security but financial benefits such as dependent health insurance.

Should the child be in the custody of a gay person in the first place? The authors of the AAP policy assume that question away. They describe the kids at stake as those who "happen to have a homosexual parent," ignoring the question of how that happened. Like abortion-rights advocates, they stipulate that the disputed conduct will take place anyway and that therefore the best policy is to make it safe and legal. "People are already doing this, de facto," says one sociologist. "The question is are you going to give parents the same rights, and therefore the kids the same rights, and the same stability in their connection to their parents that other kids have?"

7. Define the causality. Connor says society prohibits gay marriage and gay adoption because gays are more prone to promiscuity, depression, drug abuse, and suicide, and less likely to sustain stable relationships than straights are. But what if it's the other way around? What if society's verdict that you're unfit to marry or raise kids makes you more prone to promiscuity, depression, drug abuse, and suicide, and less likely to sustain stable relationships? And what if the emotional problems that afflict kids with gay parents are caused not by having gay parents, but by society's taboo against gay parenthood?

That's essentially what the AAP argues. "Prevalent heterosexism and stigmatization might lead to teasing and embarrassment for children about their parent's sexual orientation or their family constellation and restrict their ability to form and maintain friendships," says the AAP. "Children living with divorced lesbian mothers have better outcomes … when their fathers and other important adults accept their mother's lesbian identity." Above all, says the AAP, "[d]enying legal parent status through adoption to coparents or second parents prevents these children from enjoying the psychologic and legal security that comes from having 2 willing, capable, and loving parents." In other words, those who oppose legalization of gay marriage and adoption thereby perpetuate the instability they cite as grounds for denying gays the right to marry and adopt.

Each of these debates within the debate can modify the outcome. If having gay parents is better than being in an orphanage but not as good as having straight parents, maybe gays should be allowed to adopt only kids who are wards of the state, as is done in New Jersey. If having a mom and dad is better than having two moms only when all other considerations are equal, maybe sexual orientation should be a factor, though not a conclusive one, in the adoption screening process. If gay adoptions should be banned because kids of gays have the same problems as kids of divorced people, maybe a divorcee's new husband shouldn't have any more parental rights over her child than a new lesbian partner would.

Alternatively, if the emotional and financial health of a household renders its configuration irrelevant to its parental suitability, maybe threesomes (a surrogate/donor mom and two gay men) or foursomes (biological mom, biological dad, and each parent's gay partner) should be allowed to adopt kids. The AAP virtually suggests as much. Or maybe, if Connor is right that New Jersey's first gay adoption was wrong because "both adoptive parents died from AIDS," we should play it safe and give lesbians priority over straight couples in the adoption process. Be careful what standard you argue for. You just might get it.

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

William Saletan is Slate's national correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

Illustration by Robert Neubecker.

COMMENTS

Notes From The Fray Editor:

There was an enormous number of posts on this one: More than 5,000 in the first 24 hours. RKN and Jessica wrote about their experiences being raised in lesbian households. Is the right to adopt a basic human right? Capybara starts the argument here. (In this, as in other threads, there seemed a need to draw a distinction between the right to adopt your partner's child, whom you are helping to raise, and the right to adopt a child from outside.) Tina makes the case for the burden being entirely on those trying to deny gays the right to adoption. The Bell (as ever) takes a good clear look at the issues. EJK answers Michael Murray's post (below) and bravely names the states that he does not think are sophisticated enough to judge the matter: Missouri, Mississippi and Alabama. Thrasymachus sees the debate as showing the need for legal gay marriages, and started a lengthy debate.

Reader Comments From The Fray:

What fascinates me is the emphasis on "family values and the good of the children" and its theoretical derivation from our centuries old religious traditions and precepts. This simply isn't true. For much of history, at least some children have been little more than commodities or readily discarded inconveniences. They have been bred and sold in slavery, relegated to sweatshops and abandoned on the doorsteps of "foundling" homes.

Less than an hundred years ago, we were resettling abandoned children by the thousands from the cities of the northeast to the plains of the Midwest--the Orphan Trains of the late 19th and early 20th centuries…Some were wanted, well treated and loved. But most of them were little more than cheap-workers in the stony fields of flawed family values.

"Family Values" is an evolving concept not a divinely inspired time-tested certainty. If the good of the children is the key issue then perhaps a broader construction of "family" is warranted. I support the adoption of children by any stable, loving "family" unit. Even in its evolving form, it's far better than the alternative of abandonment and foster home placements.

--REW-OEM

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

In questions like these, it often helps to ask ourselves, "What is the ideal?" I'll stick my neck out and suggest the ideal way to raise a child is with two married, heterosexual Super Parents. Close behind on that list would be two married, homosexual Super Parents. Maybe after that, one unmarried Super Parent.

Towards the bottom of that list things get murky. I suppose something like the married Bad Parents, would be followed by the single Bad Parent, followed by No Parents, when the alternative is the Terrible Parents (the abusers, drug addicts, molesters, etc., who have no business raising human beings).

The reason I favor the heterosexual parents--all things being equal--is that I believe human beings ideally need models of the opposite sex to understand themselves and fully develop their masculine and feminine traits. We already know having a workaholic father more married to his career than his family has a negative impact on his children's ability to bond with males and develop healthy masculine traits (I include girls in that statement). We applaud the father whose wife dies and who tries to find a close female role model for his children. The male/female duality needs to be developed.

So, it would not be surprising to discover that children of homosexual parents would have the same challenges in developing bonds with and traits of the sex which their parents are not, as many other kids of heterosexual parents do in some instances such as those described above. But that's not necessarily a reason to deny gays the right to raise children.

Why? Because when placing adoptive children with families, we need to consider the heterosexual ideal in relation to the existence of Bad Parents, No Parents or Terrible Parents. I'd give the child to the two homosexual Super Parents, or even homosexual So-So Parents, over any of the other Parents of any sexual orientation any day.

--Hedgehog

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

Presently a background check is done when adoption occurs. Specific items that might negatively affect the child are examined in an effort not to seek perfection but to see if the situation is good enough to warrant adoption. I would argue sexual orientation could be looked at in that vein…

I would certainly not ban it because of an ideal 'on average' basis. The State has a responsibility to the citizenry to be fair in its approach to individuals and so gay adoption should not be banned in its entirety but rather face the very same obstacles and checks that others do. I would vote for such a law in my State (I do not see this as a Federal issue).

I have one caveat though. Private adoption groups should within reason be allowed to use their own criteria to place children. That is to say they should be allowed to or not to allow children to be placed in the homes of Gay couples. I would for example not be in favor of forcing Christian groups to allow Gay adoption.

--Michael Murray

(To find or answer this post, click here.)

(2/8)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES