Do It For The Children - Let Gays Adopt

Posted by Enrique on 12.04.2008

Legislating immorality



Last week, a Florida judge stuck down that state's 31-year-old ban on gay adoption. It's a silver lining in what has otherwise been a cloudy year for homosexual rights - last month, voters in California, Arizona, and Florida passed gay marriage bans, and Arkansas voters approved a ban on "unmarried" couples from adopting foster children.

Florida's erstwhile adoption ban was the most explicitly homophobic in the country. Arkansas had the relative decency to discriminate against all unwed couples, including heterosexuals. Utah has a similar adoption ban on "unmarrieds," while Mississippi has an adoption ban on gay couples, but not gay singles. But now, thanks to an activist judge, Florida's gay adoption ban is a thing of the past (pending appeal, natch). Apparently activist judges aren't so bad after all.

The story so far...

You can read the 53-page ruling by Judge Cindy Lederman in PDF format here. The case centers around two boys, now aged 4 and 8, who have lived as foster children with longtime domestic partners Martin Gill and Tom Roe for the past four years. Lederman's ruling is full of details on Gill and Roe's not-very-hedonistic lifestyle - Gill prepares breakfast for the children, plays tennis with them in the park after school, and helps them with their homework. Lederman notes that the boys have come a long way since the day they were dropped off with Gill and Roe:

The children arrived at the home of [Gill] and Tom Roe, Sr., domestic partners, and Tom Roe, Sr.'s then eight-year old biological son, Tom Roe, Jr., on the evening of December 11, 2004. John, the elder sibling, arrived with his four-month old brother wearing a dirty adult sized t-shirt and sneakers four sizes too small that seemed more like flip-flops than shoes. Both children were suffering from scalp ringworm. Although John was clearly suffering from a severe case of ringworm, the medication brought from John's home to treat his scalp was unopened and expired. James, too, suffered from an untreated ear infection, as evidenced by the one-month old, nearly unused, medication. John did not speak and had no affect. He had one concern: changing, feeding, and caring for his baby brother. It was clear from the children's first evening at the [Gill]-Roe home that the baby's main caretaker was John, his four year old brother.

Once removed from that charming heterosexual household, the boys have had the opportunity to grow up in a stable, loving environment. In the case of "James," Gill and Roe are the only parents he's ever known. There is no question that preventing the adoption of the boys by Gill and Roe would have deleterious consequences, so naturally that's exactly what the state of Florida intended to do.

Gill's attorneys presented several experts whom Judge Lederman evidently found more persuasive than the experts presented by the Florida Department of Children and Families. One such not-very-persuasive expert was Dr. George Rekers, a clinical psychologist, and author of such books as "Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality." It probably won't surprise you to know that Dr. Rekers is also an ordained Baptist minister. Lederman disapprovingly cites passages from Rekers' books in her ruling, including this little gem - "An honest scholarly search for the truth about homosexuality should not stop with psychological or medical information alone. Wise professionals should also consider evidence for moral truth as well. The bible teaches that people are foolish if they deny God's reality and live their lives as though he were not there."

In other words, ignore all that annoying scientific evidence and believe the bible. Good thing the bible isn't full of fictional stories that are open to wide interpretation, no?

The Department's other expert was Dr. Walter Schumm, who had once co-authored a paper in which we wrote, "Within the limitations imposed by context, errors in translation and errors of individual interpretation, we prefer to accept the authority of the Bible as the best guide for sexual decision making, as well as for many other areas of life." Schumm's co-author on that paper was none other than - wait for it - Dr. George Rekers. I hope the state of Florida got a two-for-one discount on these expert witnesses.

With all due respect to bible-believing Christians, you don't need an expert to tell you that homosexuals are, at the very least, perfectly adequate parents. All you need is to have met a gay person once in your life, and maybe had a conversation with them. If you did, you wouldn't sound as gratingly ignorant as most social conservatives do when they oppose gay marriage and/or adoption. As far as I can tell, this brand of religion-based homophobia is motivated by the sincere belief that sexual orientation is a matter of choice rather than inborn. This belief is sincerely mistaken.

No one would choose to be gay, because it would be a choice against self-interest. Even in this relatively progressive era, homosexuals routinely face ostracization from family and peers. Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage pass with relative ease all over the country. To be gay is to be a member of a group that is regularly discriminated against by individuals as well as state legislatures - no one would choose that. It's simply illogical to believe that homosexuality is a matter of choice - but of course, religion has never been very big on logic.

Although I agree with Judge Lederman's eminently sensible ruling, the reality is that judicial decrees of this kind can prompt backlashes. The successful passage of California's Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage, was partially a retaliation against the state supreme court's previous ruling that legalized homosexual nuptials. In a sense, Lederman has unwittingly strengthened the hand of gay rights opponents. At the same time, what else can gay rights activists do? Historically, the voting public at large has been slow to recognize the civil rights of minority groups. How long are homosexuals supposed to wait for a majority of Americans to attain enlightenment? If it were up to the voting public and their elected representatives, Gill and Roe wouldn't be able to adopt the children they had parented for four years. At some point, the courts have to intervene when civil rights are being violated. (My 411 colleague Andrew Tobolowsky makes a similar argument here.)

Private individuals are entitled to make their own moral judgments, even when their definition of "morality" is to discriminate against people they don't care for. Public institutions, on the other hand, are obliged to provide equal protection under the law. It's clear that Florida's adoption ban was regressive and prejudicial. It had nothing to do with the well-being of children - it was about the state enforcement of religious morality. Hopefully, Lederman's ruling will hold up on appeal. In the end, she made the right decision for the children. Think of the children.