Civil Unions: A Solution for Adoption
by Same-Sex Couples 

Becky and Sam, a couple of twenty years, have been amazing parents to a beautiful girl, Melissa, for ten years. Becky took the steps in order to adopt Melissa from the adoption agency and together Sam and Becky took on the challenge of raising this innocent child. The ups and downs of the family were overcome with a ton of love, faith, and hope. Sadly, the happiness and hope came to a screeching halt after a terrible car accident took Becky's life. The death of Becky was incredibly hard for Sam and Melissa, and the pain increased when Melissa was taken from Sam to live in a foster family. Because Becky and Sam are women, the only way for the couple to raise a child was for one of them to adopt a child. Consequently, Melissa was forced to leave everything she knew to live in a foster home. Becky and Sam's adoption case is like that of many gay and lesbian couples in the United States today. Homosexual couples have waited an incredibly long time in order for one partner to be considered a candidate for adoption, and now they have to face legal issues concerning rights if they separate or the adoptive parent dies. In order for both members of homosexual couples in American to have rights in adoption cases such as death or separation, society has to allow for states to legalize civil unions between gay and lesbian couples to be legal. 

Issues concerning gay and lesbian adoption rights have become extremely popular in the United States in the last four years. It is unfortunate to find "many gays and lesbians are concerned that they will not be allowed to adopt because they are gay [. . .]," and because of this mind-set they simply do not try (Lev 4). United States adoption laws are left up to individual states; according to "Gay and Lesbian adoption" written by Arlene Istar Lev, "most states do not allow same-sex second-parent adoption which means only [one] parent will be allowed to legally adopt the child" (4). The state government is in control of the issue of civil unions, gay adoption, and other gay rights. The federal government in Washington, DC should not determine whether or not a couple weds, adopts, or receives rights. Single-parent adoption is a positive step for gay and lesbian adoption; consequently, the non-adoptive parent is denied any legal rights to the child. Same-sex couples deserve equal recognition as parents in order to ensure rights to the child if the couple separates or the adoptive parent dies. The best solution to guarantee adoption rights for a homosexual couple is the legalization of civil unions.

          In my opinion, as well as the opinion of many homosexuals, homosexuality is not a lifestyle they choose. In an editorial by Jim Fisher of the Lewiston Morning Tribune, he states "[Homosexuals] say they were born the way they are [. . .]" (4A). In addition, Fisher suggests "discriminating against [homosexuals] is no different from discriminating against black people or other racial or ethnic minorities who have no choice about how they were born" (4A). Since one does not choose homosexuality, the government should not deny them the chance to receive civil unions. Permitting civil unions for homosexual couples warrants the change of adoption laws to provide rights in all cases of gay and lesbian adoption. 

          There are an estimated 520,000 kids in U.S. foster homes based on the most current Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, released in January 2000. If one crunches that number further, he can find 117,000 children eligible for adoption ("Statistics" I).  If homosexual couples are given the opportunity for legal civil unions, more states would permit same-sex adoption. Since many states never consider legalizing adoption by same-sex couples, many homosexuals are discouraged from remotely considering the option. Therefore, if the states allowed same-sex civil unions, then homosexual couples would have the contract giving them incentive to consider adoption. I feel children deserve to be provided a loving home and many homosexual couples can give them love and much more. The effects of allowing same-sex civil unions would be positive for both children and many presently wary homosexual couples.

            Legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples solves cases in which a couple separates or the adoptive parent dies. The current system grants homosexuals the ability to adopt children individually and raise them as a couple. However, problems arise when couples separate and the fight for custody begins. The parent who did not adopt the child has no legal rights and under the law she or he cannot be given custodial rights. These laws are left up to the individual states; for example, in New York the law states that "[. . .] Domestic Relations Law section 70 does not grant a standing to lesbian non-biological co-parent to petition for visitation with the biological child of her former lesbian partner [. . .]" (Sultan 8). For example, if a lesbian couple chose to raise a child by one partner through artificial insemination and the couple later separates, the non-biological parent would have no legal rights to appeal for any rights to the child. The New York adoption laws are similar to many other states, which is why enacting civil unions for same-sex couples is the necessary solution. In the instance of death, a legal union provides rights for both parents, and the child would not be removed from the family to live in a foster home.

Challengers of same-sex marriage believe allowing civil unions will hurt our society, especially our children. In an article by David Ammons of the Lewiston Morning Tribune, Jeff  Kemp, executive director of the Bellevue-based Families Northwest, stated '" [we have] seen first hand the damage [. . .] when children don't have the benefit of experiencing the different types of parenting that a mother and father bring to the family'" (qtd. in Ammons 5A). According to Kemp, all children not raised in the typical "nuclear" family are going to be damaged. Kemp argues that 'children need to have both a mother and father as role models [. . .] that is the bestarrangement for our kids' (qtd. in Ammons SA). However, Sheryl L. Sultan, the author of "The Right of Homosexuals to Adopt: Changing Legal Interpretations of "Parent" and "Family"",  refutes that assumption: "[The problem with this objection is that it ignores the negative attributes of nuclear families and the positive characteristics of alternative families" (6). Many children in traditional families are not receiving the amount of love and support they need. Many homosexual couples could provide the love and support needed if granted the chance to receive legal unions. Sultan argues further "[. . .] these alternative family arrangements preserve tradition family qualities- values, stability, commitment, affection and support [. . .J" (6).

          Many foes of same-sex child adoption assert children's psychological health and mental wellness are compromised if raised by homosexual parents. However, I believe homosexuality is an inborn characteristic which means the couple's lifestyle would have little to no effect on the child's sexual orientation. Sultan argues in "The Right of Homosexuals to Adopt: Changing Legal Interpretations of "Parent" and "Family"" that there is "no evidence to suggest the psychological health and emotional well-being of children raised in gay or lesbian households is comprised in any way" (9). Research shows "the quality of parenting, not the parents' sexual orientation, is the most crucial factor for a child's healthy growth and development" (Sultan 9).  Sexual orientation cannot be the deciding factor when looking for the child's "best interest" because judging a couple based on sexual orientation is discriminatory towards them as human beings. 

Supporters of same-sex adoption suggest the system is currently working sufficiently. Many people claim the present system is sufficient because gay and lesbians are able to adopt and rights in separation should be given to the legal parent. The argument they make is that homosexual couples can adopt a child; therefore, there is no need for a civil union to be enacted. However, in the cases of death and separation the current laws to provide both parents with full rights. The couple may be allowed to adopt a child by one-parent adoption, but the other parent is denied any legal rights under state law to gain custody if the partner were to die or separate from his or her partner. The system currently only is allowing single parent adoption, and the larger issue is the need for full legal rights for the both parties of the couple in homosexual adoption. 

          The other option is to redefine the definition of "parent" and "family." Since  uncertainties lie in the laws binding adoption agencies, expanding the legal definition of "parent" to include homosexual people would allow for both parties to be recognized (Sultan 7). This solution suggests changing the legal definition of the words "parent" and "family" to such that "this new definition of "parent" [will acknowledge] all those considered parents would be accorded the rights and responsibilities of parenthood" (Sultan 7). The reason for this method would be to erase the theory that "every child should have one mother and one father" and expand another theory stating "two persons identified as mother and father should have all the rights and responsibilities of parenthood" (Sultan 7). However, the task of redefining the terms "parent" and "family" is difficult because determining how broad to make the new definition creates more controversy. Many people agree with Doug Wheeler, director of Zion Preparatory Academy in Seattle that "expanding the definition of marriage would 'pollute the minds of our children'" (qtd in Ammons SA). Though I do not believe children's minds will be polluted the process of changing the definition would create more confusion than necessary to solve the problem of same-sex adoption rights. The best solution to allowing full rights to same-sex couples in all adoption cases is legalizing civil unions at the state level.

          One may propose a question such as: Why not jump to marriage as a solution rather than sticking simply with allowing only civil unions? Full marriage rights for homosexual couples would guarantee the couple full rights in all adoption cases and other legal rights many same-sex couples desire, such as taxes. However, since the matter of same-sex marriage is very controversial and many states have been encouraged to ban same-sex marriage, it would not efficiently solve the problem of adoption by same-sex couples in a reasonable time span. There are too many religious, ethical, moral, and legal issues to sort out before same-sex marriage can be allowed. The matter at hand is the legal rights regarding adoptive children and the rights homosexual couples have for them, which can easily and more quickly be solved by enacting civil unions at the state level.

In child adoption cases, both members of homosexual couples in American deserve recognition by legal civil union. If Becky and Sam were allowed to receive a civil union in their presiding state, the adoption agency would have recognized both Becky and Sam as parents to Melissa. Consequently, when the unexpected death of Becky occurred, Sam and Melissa would not have to deal with the pain of losing Becky and each other. There are many cases such as Becky, Sam, and Melissa's in which the simple solution is a binding document acknowledging the couple as having a legal civil union allowing them to start a family. Society's "traditional" family is continually evolving into more blended, single parent, and alternative families; laws and the government need to catch up with change by allowing civil unions for same-sex couples. 

Works Cited 

Ammons, David. "Gay Marriage Foes Seek Constitutional Ban." Lewiston Morning Tribune 22 Sept. 2004: 5A+.

Lev, Istar Arlene. "Gay and Lesbian adoption." Family Pride Coalition Web Page. 29 Oct. 2004.  Wells Fargo. 27 Oct. 2004. <http://www.familiVPride.org/librarv/pdf/gladoptions.pdf>.

"Statistics on Adoptions from Foster Care." The Adoption Web Page. Adoption Network Law Center. 31 Oct. 2004.<http://statistics.adoption.com/adoption from foster care 1999.php>.

Sultan, Sheryl L. "The Right of Homosexuals to Adopt: Changing the Legal Interpretations of  "Parent" and "Family"." The Society for Human Sexuality Web Page. 26 Oct. 2004. 27 Oct. 2004.

<http://www .sexuality .orgll/incoming/ gladopt.html>.

"Was it Wise to let Catholics and Baptists Marry?" Editorial. Lewiston Morning Tribune 15 Oct. 2004: 4A. Works Consulted

Ammons, David. "Gay Marriage Foes Seek Constitutional Ban." Lewiston Morning Tribune 22  Sept. 2004: 5A+. Barr, Robert. "Anglican Reports Criticized U.S. Church over Gay Bishop." Lewiston Morning Tribune 19 Oct. 2004: 2A.

Boone, Rebecca. "Gay Dad 'Devastated'." Lewiston Morning Tribune 23 Sept. 2004: 9A.

Eisenberg, Carol. "Episcopalians get Rebuke over Gay Bishop." Spokesman Review 19 Oct. 2004: Al+.

Lev, Istar Arlene. "Gay and Lesbian adoption." Familv Pride Coalition Web Page. 29 Oct. 2004. Wells Fargo. 27 Oct. 2004. <http://www.familivpride.org/librarv/pdf/gladoptions.pdf>.

Oxley, Chuck. "Lesbian Tries Political Breakthrough in Idaho." Lewiston Morning Tribune 25 Oct. 2004: 6A.

Silverman, Julia. "Gay Marriage Battle Will Move Back to Courts." Lewiston Morning Tribune 2 Oct. 2004: 9A.

Simon, Richard. "House Rejects Proposal to Ban Gay Marriages." Spokesman Review. 1 Oct. 2004: A3.

"Statistics on Adoptions from Foster Care." The Adoption Web Page. Adoption Network Law Center. 31 Oct. 2004. <http://statistics.adoption.com/adoption from foster care 1999.Vhp>.

Sultan, Sheryl L. "The Right of Homosexuals to Adopt: Changing the Legal Interpretations of "Parent" and "Family"." The Society for Human Sexuality Web Page. 26 Oct. 2004. 27 Oct. 2004. http://www.sexuality.orgfl/incoming/gladopt.html> .