WUI (Writing under the influence)

I wrote the other day that married couples should be given precedence in adoptions over other "family" arrangements. Amazingly, earlier today, I learned that there is a new bill being introduced in the Oregon House called House Bill 2401 that would give preference "to prospective adoptive parents who are married over those who are unmarried or same-sex partners." Furthermore, the bill would give preference to married couples living in the state of Oregon.

[HB 2401] [...] [d]eclares state policy relating to adoptions. Requires Department of Human Services, Oregon licensed adoption agency or approved child-caring agency of this state that may consent to adoption of child to give preference to prospective adoptive parents who are married over those who are unmarried or same-sex partners. Requires department or agency to give preference to prospective adoptive parents who live in this state over those who live outside this state. Provides exceptions."

The bill doesn't ban adoptions by same-sex couples; it simply proposes adding another criterion that would help adoption agency in determining the best family for each child. I like it; I think it's a sensible compromise.

Of course, for some, there can be no compromise. In addition to the standard canard of "many studies have shown this and that" I'm getting in many e-mails, I'm being accused of gay-bashing:

"Not only do I think this bill Krystof is supporting is bunk, I think it's irrelevant bunk.

"We have lots of real problems in this state. Whether the loving home a child is adopted into has one or two parents, gay or straight, is not a problem.

"(Whether we have a torture-proponent for attorney general of the entire nation, now there's a real moral problem.)

"Fully funding education and health care, cleaning up the horrendous deficit in mental health care resources, dismantling the availability of methamphetamine ingredients, repairing infrastructure, protecting natural resources, etc etc etc... now those are some REAL problems.

"Enough already of the stupid gay-bashing. It's tiresome and pointlessly destructive and a needless distraction."

Speaking of bunk, there are no conclusive, authoritative studies that children do well regardless of family arrangements. In the case of same-sex couples, the samples used in such "studies" were simply too small. And it should stay that way.

To be honest, I support married-couples-first adoption policies because they make sense to me. I'm not basing my opinions on any research. Patricia Morgan, a sociologist specializing in family policy, wrote a book a while ago debunking the "evidence" that homosexual parenting is at least as good if not better than parenting in the traditional two-parent family. The book is titled "Children as trophies?: Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting." The tile is very fitting, I think. It seems that certain adoption agencies try to score politically-correct points instead of looking after the best interest of children that are supposed to represent. Although "trophies" in the title could be referring to how some adoptive parents see "their" children.

I think Morgan advocates banning same-sex adoptions, something I'm not willing to do because I think it's always better to live in a stable home than to be a foster child. But Morgan is not alone. American College of Peditricians says on its website:

"The research literature on childrearing by homosexual parents is limited. The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science."