Gay couples and adoption

A single, gay individual can adopt in Florida, as long as they don't reveal their homosexuality.

Slightly different than what you're talking about. Couples cannot adopt in Florida.

Thanks for the input.  Point of clarification:  What is the law in your state regarding openly gay couples (or singles) and adoption?  None of this ‘don’t ask/don’t tell’ stuff.

Gay individuals (regardless of whether or not they are a part of a couple) have been able to adopt in Colorado.

The legislature just passed (& guv signed) a law that allows a second adoption by an adult who is not married to the 1st adoptive/birth parent, regardless of the couple's sexual orientation. 

I think they still have to go through all of the paperwork, home-study etc requirements, even if it was just done for the first parent adoption, but it's still progress!

Ty, are you trying to find me a cool place to live, you dear sweet man?

(and if there is actually someone on BT who thinks I should NOT be allowed to adopt, please, feel free to tell me why it is better for children to remain parentless ) 

The law in Florida forbids a gay couple from adopting a child.

We have hundreds of children in foster care. The legislature - and citizenry - prefers that foster children rot in foster care rather than be adopted by a gay couple (or openly gay individual).

That was not the intention, but if this ends up helping, I’ll take a Long Island Ice Tea for my first round.

Actually, between our PM’s and a comment that Jeff (Q) made in my inspires got me to thinking, and so I posted to find out.

You mean like marathoners who want to adopt sprinters? That is SO wrong!

I guess it is sort of sad to say that I do not know what the "Law" is in my state. (California) A quick Internet search seems to suggest that Gay Couples are allowed to adopt, as well as "Second Parent" Adoption. (Did not know that was even an issue until I read it)

My confusion stems from the fact that it appears to be legal in California mostly by inference (Legal Enterpretations and court rullings rather than an actual law granting the right) and there have been numerous legal and political actions designed to alter this arrangement.

I am guessing that a lot of what I was reading was out-dated and possibly even wrong.

Does anybody know what the law is in California?

Now that is funny.

I wonder if a Half Marathoner is seen (In the Eyes of the Court) to have full legal status or only partial? (IE. Half)

Basically in Utah they want you to be married to adopt.   Since gay people cannot wed in our state, that excludes most gay couples from adopting.   I did have a gay friend who had children from a previous (straight) relationship and was able to have her partner adopt her 2 kids.   It is fairly rare and only works in certain situations.  

I can agree that  a married couple is probably the most stable place to put children.  You want the parents to stay together until the kid is raised, ideally.   you can't really say that gay couples are unstable though, because if they are looking to adopt a kid, they have obviously made more of a commitment than straight newlyweds!   Maybe they should change the requirement to 3 years together or something like that.   I don't know how to define a "stable" home, but married is no guarantee either. 

 Utah Adoption Law:

     (3) (a) A child may be adopted by:
     (i) adults who are legally married to each other in accordance with the laws of this state, including adoption by a stepparent; or
     (ii) subject to Subsection (4), any single adult, except as provided in Subsection (3)(b).
     (b) A child may not be adopted by a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state. For purposes of this Subsection (3)(b), "cohabiting" means residing with another person and being involved in a sexual relationship with that person.
     (4) In order to provide a child who is in the custody of the division with the most beneficial family structure, when a child in the custody of the division is placed for adoption, the division or child-placing agency shall place the child with a man and a woman who are married to each other, unless:
     (a) there are no qualified married couples who:
    (i) have applied to adopt a child;

     (ii) are willing to adopt the child; and
     (iii) are an appropriate placement for the child;
     (b) the child is placed with a relative of the child;
     (c) the child is placed with a person who has already developed a substantial relationship with the child;
     (d) the child is placed with a person who:
     (i) is selected by a parent or former parent of the child, if the parent or former parent consented to the adoption of the child; and
     (ii) the parent or former parent described in Subsection (4)(d)(i):
     (A) knew the person with whom the child is placed before the parent consented to the adoption; or
     (B) became aware of the person with whom the child is placed through a source other than the division or the child-placing agency that assists with the adoption of the child; or
     (e) it is in the best interests of the child to place the child with a single person.

Legal in NY.

One of the attorneys that worked on the adoption of our youngest represented the lesbian couple in the case that set precedent in NY state allowing for it. 

Hollis, I respect you enough to give you my honest opinion.

I just popped in for a second, so I won't be able to respond in detail with what I'm about to write until probably tomorrow sometime.

As I told you in a PM a while back, I know and have been friends with a number of "gay" families through the years. And I've seen the good side and the troubling side of their work at raising children. As far as adopting goes, I'm still deciding. But since I wrote to you last about this, I'm leaning toward being against gay adoption.

Here's a basic argument for some opponents of gay adoption.

• The very definition of marriage, based in natural law, is that it is a two-in-one flesh union of one man and one woman.

• Any type of sex outside of this marital union is immoral.

• The state has a right to regulate marriage.

• The state has a stake in the birth and rearing of children.

• The state therefore has a right to regulate adoptions.

• By allowing gay adoptions, the state is in fact sanctioning gay marriage. (This strategy to get gay marriage on the books was recently used in New Jersey. When the issue of gay marriage first came up, opponents were told that it had nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with children. Later, when the issue of gay marriage came up, opponents were then told that since the state already allowed gay adoptions, gay marriage had everything to do with the welfare of the children. )

• Since sex outside of the marital union of one man and one woman is immoral, children within a gay adoption scenario are being taught that other forms of sexual relations are moral, when in fact they are not.

• The coupling of the issue of gay adoption with the issue of children needing to be adopted is a strawman. The needs of children waiting to be adopted is a separate issue.

That's basically it. I think it's a pretty strong argument.

Just one more point:

• Gay adoption teaches children that parental gender is irrelevant.  It teaches that two mothers, or two fathers, are the equivalent of a mother and a father in developing a child's psyche.  Looking at the whole of society, this is false. 

For example, in Spain a law was recently passed that forbids the use of the words "mother" and "father" on birth certificates, and replaces those words with the terms "progenitor A and progenitor B". 

It looks like Utah allows single people to adopt.

Presumably, a single homosexual person who is not "out" could adopt, by the looks of what you cited.

If I recall correctly, unmarried couples in Florida are not allowed to adopt foster children (not sure about non-foster children adoptions). Also, a single person who is cohabitating may not adopt; the State wants to ensure that the home is stable and they can't fully 'vet' the non-adopting cohabitator so they won't sanction the adoption. That makes sense to me.

However, a single person who does not have another adult living in their home may adopt, assuming they pass the home inspections, background check, psyche evaluation and whatnot.

This is what I see as the biggest hole in this line of reasoning.  The state does not say that sex outside of marriage is immoral and that has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. (Well, actually it's not illegal, but how else does a state designate something as being "immoral" other than making it illegal?). 

Don - there are finer points but basically your statements boil down to two issues.  Marriage and morality.  Both issues which you allow to determine your stance on this issue. 

You say it is strawman to start with the children who need homes and work backwards.

In my world I don't think the difference between parents who are allowed to keep children and be abusive toward them and those who would be great parents but can't have them should be their biological incompatability.  My wife and I were biologically incapable of having children.  I think we are doing ok with the 3 we have now.  I see no difference between us and a gay couple in this regard.

We've discussed this other facet before, as well, but if an entity (like say a religious group) is going to be opposed to birth control, and abortion, AND refuse to let willing and able parents adopt unwanted kids, what the heck are we supposed to do with all the kids???  All of your answers to that are going to be about how to prevent the situation.  The kids are already here and their numbers are growing faster all the time. 

You can start with the theoretical arguments about natural law and logic.  I'll start with the kids.  I don't care what religion anyone is, that can't be wrong.

edited to add:  I'm tapering. 

Right. I should have expanded it to say that the citizens who constitute the state have the right to base the laws of the state on notions of morality based in natural law. So opponents of gay adoption would argue that any type of sex outside of the marital union of one man and one woman is immoral, and that as citizen's of the state, it is reasonable for them in this case to have laws that reflect their moral beliefs.

Equally, citizen's of the state have the right to base laws of the state on notions based in positive law. So these citizen's also have the right to base laws on their moral beliefs, such as the belief that sex outside of one-man-one-woman marriage is moral.

But I thing you're right, the state itself is, to a degree, morally neutral.

Or, at the very least, don't end up with DC madams whilst spouting the morality cr@p