Blog powered by TypePad

« See You Thursday | Main | Counting H'omer »

April 07, 2004

More on Parents and Adoption

A syllogism I proposed here has sparked an ongoing discussion over whether aoptive parents are parents in the sense that "parents ought to be married".  If the answer is "yes", then my syllogism "Parents ought to be married;  Gays are parents;  Gays ought to be married."  holds.  To me it was so "clear" that the answer was yes, that I had not thought anyone would disagree.  As is often the case, though, what is "clear" to one person may not seem so "clear" to another.  For example, to some it is "clear" that marriage should be gender dependent, whereas I do not see that to be the case.  So I will do my best to explain what leads me to believe that adoptive parents are parents.  Ultimately, there may be some who will never accept that premise, and no amount of debate may change that.  The latest response in this discussion came from Mary Catelli at MarriageDebate.com.

She had written that gays can only be the lovers of parents on par with nannies or roommates who help to raise another's children.  I had wondered what would lead her to believe this, seeing as many gays jointly adopt children.  For example both Guy and Trey from Daddy, Papa & Me are listed as the legal parents of their daughter Emma on her birth certificate (Happy Birthday!).  In my mind it would be absurd to say only one of them--or neither--is Emma's parent.  In response, Ms. Catelli writes:

I got [this] idea from the fact that his statement "Gay people are parents" is unintelligible without it. His claim that there is a difference between one's gay lover and one's nanny does not hold water. He claims "The differences are enormous, but perhaps the most significant is that either can walk away at will. A parent cannot (legally and/or ethically) just walk away from a child." -- but so too can one walk away from one's (heterosexual or homosexual) lover's children or, for that matter, one's stepchildren.

Her argument just shows that a lover or stepparent is not the same as an adoptive parent.  That is the very point I have been making.  An adoptive parent cannot terminate the responsibilities he or she has to her children at will.  An adoptive parent is not motivated by pay or affection for another adult.  An  adoptive parent has the full legal rights and responsibilities of any other parent.  Adoptive parents are generally the only parents a child knows.  If despite all of this, one still equates an adoptive parent with a nanny, we are too far apart for any meaningful discussion.  And yet Ms. Catelli writes:

I do not think that adoption changes the matter so enormously as to justify marriage -- particularly as marriage does not secure any legal responsibilty toward the child. What is needed is adoption, which is not required by marriage. I doubt Mr. Rosenberg would require all homosexual couples to agree to adopt each other's children as a condition of marriage, which is the only way his "Gay people are parents" argument for marriage would stand on its own.

Unlike the previous paragraph, in this one Ms. Catelli does seem to acknowledge here that adoption does make some difference, just not enough to justify marriage.  Her reason is that the marriage itself does not secure any responsibility towards the child that adoption does not already secure.  This misses two important points, though.  First, marriage make this legal responsibillity automatic and immediate for children born into the marriage.  In addition to saving parents thousands of dollars in adoption fees that could better be spent on the child's health and education, the immediacy can be extremely important for the child in those early critical months.  To give just one example, the child may benefit immensely by being covered by her parent's health insurance.  More importantly, marriage does much more than just establish the legal responsibiliities of a parent.  If that were the only benefit of marriage to children, it wouldn't matter if parents remained married.  Once paterninty was established the marriage would have served "its purpose".   This view of marriage ignores its immense value in helping a family to raise children.  And of course, if marriage only mattered for children it wouldn't matter if a couple without children--or whose children were raised--remained married.

So no, I wouldn't require someone in a same-sex couple to adopt their stepchildren as a condition of marriage, just as we don't require this of oppoiste-sex couples.  I would expect that both parents would take legal responsibility for any children brought into the marriage, though.  And as we have seen, a same-sex couple does not necessarily consist of a parent and stepparent.  So I respectfully submit that my argument does indeed still stand.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83455f19269e200e55064daef8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More on Parents and Adoption:

» and speaking of adoption from Daddy, Papa & Me
Galois has continued the discussion about what it is to be a 'parent' in the ongoing marriage debate. He made... [Read More]

Comments

She had written that gays can only be the lovers of parents on par with nannies or roommates who help to raise another's children.

Were this true, what is the purpose of a law requiring their legal status be equivalent to nanny or roomate?

If they "can only be", the law barring them from doing that which they cannot do would have no effect.

The law she would propose would insist that they "may only be". For some reason, she wishes this.

Different.

btw.. thanks for the 'Happy Birthday!' :), the big 2 tomorrow :)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment